Tridonic v CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics (CFI, 7 March 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 7 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_459/2023), the Düsseldorf Local Division (Klepsch, presiding, Thom, rapporteur, Agergaard and Schober, technically qualified judge) dismissed on the merits Tridonic’s action against CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics and CUPOWER Europe for infringement of claims 7 to 10 of EP 2 011 218, on a boost power factor correction circuit, and also held the counterclaim for revocation unfounded. The main teaching lies in the headnote: new attacks on validity raised for the first time at the oral hearing are not taken into account, since tactics aimed at surprise are foreign to the Rules of Procedure.

Facts and procedure

Tridonic, the proprietor, alleged that the defendants offered and, in CUPOWER Europe’s case, distributed in Germany and France an LED driver (ID LCCB 100/230/250-700 NFC FV 1). It sought among other things a declaration of infringement of claim 7, an injunction, information, destruction and recall, damages and an interim award of EUR 46,000. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of claims 7 to 10 for all States in which the patent has effect. Tridonic defended the patent with seven auxiliary requests. The interim procedure closed on 16 January 2025 and the oral hearing took place on 17 January 2025. At the hearing the defendants relied for the first time on a citation D7 against novelty and on a combination of D3 and D4 against inventive step. Tridonic objected that these were late.

The applicable law

The Division found jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA, the choice of division being also deemed accepted absent any objection (Rule 19.7). The counterclaim falls within the exclusive jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(e), no opt-out being in force. International jurisdiction rests on Arts. 24(4), 71a and 71b of Regulation 1215/2012. Claims are construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol: the claim is the basis for the extent of protection, and the description and drawings are always used to interpret it, not merely to resolve ambiguity.

Question

Must attacks on validity raised for the first time at the oral hearing be considered, and does the LED driver embody the features of claim 7 concerning detection of the zero crossing of the coil current while the switch is open and the decoupling element?

Decision

Claim 7 requires a single input of the control unit receiving in turn the switch current and the zero crossing of the coil current. « Detecting » means measuring for further processing, and the detection method is left open. The decoupling element, defined by its function, must however ensure complete separation of the two signal paths, in line with the potential separation described in paragraph [0017]: mere attenuation is not enough, and capacitive decoupling is covered only if it achieves that separation.

The new attacks raised at the hearing (novelty over D7, combination of D3 and D4) were disregarded, either as an amendment of the counterclaim refused under Rules 263 and 265, since they should have been raised in the reply at the latest, or as late submissions under Rule 9.2, tactics aimed at surprise, or reacting to the panel’s preliminary view given at the start of the hearing, are foreign to the Rules of Procedure. No prior art (D3, D4, D6, D8) discloses detection at a single input with a decoupling element, and no combination starting from D5, D7, D9, D6 or D10 renders the solution obvious. The auxiliary requests did not need to be considered.

Infringement was rejected: in the accused driver, capacitor C3 remains permanently connected to the measuring pin and passes on any change in voltage, so it does not provide the complete separation required by feature 7.4. Tridonic bears the costs of the action and the defendants, in equal shares, those of the counterclaim, each action was valued at EUR 500,000 and the ceiling on recoverable representation costs set at EUR 112,000.

Key points for practice

• A new attack on validity raised at the oral hearing, after the interim procedure has closed, is disregarded.
• An element defined by its decoupling function is understood, in light of the description, as requiring complete separation of the signals. A component that merely attenuates interference does not qualify.
• Failing a preliminary objection, the claimant’s choice of division is deemed accepted (Rule 19.7).
• Practical point: all citations and combinations should be pleaded in the written procedure, the oral hearing is no place for a surprise attack.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 32(1)(e), 33(1)(b), 64(2)(a), 69(1) and 83(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 19.7, 118.5, 152.2, 263 and 265

European Patent Convention

Arts 54, 56 and 69 and Protocol on its interpretation

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts. 24(4), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024), Franz Kaldewei v Bette, Düsseldorf Local Division, 3 July 2024, Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 9 April 2024, Seoul Viosys v expert, Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 October 2024, Sanofi v Amgen, Munich Central Division, 16 July 2024, Paris Central Division, 29 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_265/2023)

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.