Steindl Krantechnik v Kronos Machinery (CFI, 19 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 23 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 19 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_1209/2025, counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_731/2026), Matthias Zigann, presiding judge of Panel 1a of the Munich Local Division acting as judge-rapporteur, closes the interim procedure in the action brought by Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. against Kronos Machinery Oy Ab for infringement of EP 3 287 315 by the KARGO 121 forestry trailer, confirms the hearing of 12 November 2026, refuses separate witness hearings, video examination and court-organised interpretation, sets the value of the dispute at EUR 1.4 million and informs the parties of his preliminary view that neither the action nor the counterclaim is likely to succeed.

Question

What measures does the judge-rapporteur take after the interim conference to organise the hearing, the taking of evidence and interpretation, and how does he use his preliminary assessment of the merits?

Decision

Following the interim conference of 16 October 2026, held by video, the judge-rapporteur admits the clarified definition of the subject-matter of the infringement action and the four auxiliary requests, without prejudging their admissibility (paras 26 to 29). The parties agree a value of EUR 700,000 for each of the two actions, EUR 1.4 million in total (para. 30 and order 9). Kronos’s request to cap recoverable costs at EUR 40,000 under Rule 376A RoP is refused: a party invoking a threat to its economic survival must conduct its own case with corresponding restraint, whereas Kronos’s representation costs already amounted to EUR 101,029.67 on 13 July 2026, followed by a further 180 pages of submissions (para. 32). The judge-rapporteur states that, on his preliminary assessment, neither the infringement action, including by equivalence, nor the counterclaim for revocation is likely to succeed, and proposes a global settlement or at least an agreement on costs, to be reported by 30 October 2026 (paras 33 and 34). Questions of late submissions and the requests for production orders are referred to the panel, and witness evidence appears unnecessary if the disputed facts are assumed to be true (paras 35 to 37). The in-person hearing of 12 November 2026 in Munich is confirmed for one afternoon, simultaneous interpretation at the court’s expense is refused, the need for Kronos employees to follow the hearing being insufficient under the case law of the Court of Appeal, while Kronos remains free to arrange its own interpretation outside the courtroom (paras 39 and 40, order 5). English-language documents need not be translated (order 6). The interim procedure is closed (order 11).

Key points for practice

• The judge-rapporteur shares his preliminary view of the merits, unfavourable to both sides, to encourage a global settlement or at least an agreement on costs (paras 33 and 34).
• A reduction of the ceiling for recoverable costs under Rule 376A RoP presupposes that the requesting party has itself conducted the proceedings with restraint, which representation costs above EUR 100,000 before the interim conference rule out (para. 32).
• Simultaneous interpretation at the court’s expense is not ordered merely so that a party’s employees can follow the hearing, the party remaining free to arrange private interpretation in the overflow room or by video (paras 39 and 40).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 104, 105.5, 112, 172.2, 333, 370.8 and 376A RoP

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 23 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.