Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik v VEMAG Maschinenbau (CFI, UPC_CFI_184/2025, 16 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 16 June 2026, given in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_184/2025 (infringement action) and UPC_CFI_549/2025 (counterclaim for revocation), the Munich Local Division maintains Albert Handtmann’s EP 3 106 035, concerning a receptacle basket for the lifting device of a food-processing machine, in the form of auxiliary request 2, and revokes the patent for the remainder in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, France and Italy. It holds that VEMAG’s DPnx and HPnx vacuum filling machines literally infringe the maintained claims and grants an injunction in those five states, with recall, information, publication, damages to be assessed and an interim award of EUR 50,000. The decision shows a broad reading of the term « sealing element », which may consist of several parts and be attached indirectly, and the rejection of inventive step arguments raised for the first time at the hearing.

Facts and procedure

The parties compete in the food-processing machinery sector. Handtmann filed the action on 28 February 2025, VEMAG counterclaimed for revocation. An opposition against the patent had been rejected at the EPO (paragraph 2). After the written procedure closed on 2 January 2026 and an interim conference on 22 January 2026, the oral hearing took place on 22 April 2026. At the hearing, the proprietor abandoned the granted version and defended the patent in the form of auxiliary request 2, put forward as its main request (paragraphs 5 and 26).

The applicable law

Validity is assessed under Arts 54, 56 and 138(1)(a) EPC, and the division’s power to limit the patent follows from Art. 65(2) UPCA. The debate focused mainly on the construction of the features « Dichtelement » (sealing element) and « entlang » (along) in claim 1 (paragraphs 20 to 25). New arguments raised late are disregarded under the front-loaded character of the proceedings (paragraphs 33 to 35).

Question

Is the limited version of the patent novel and inventive over the cited prior art, and do VEMAG’s machines reproduce the sealing element arranged along the receptacle basket?

Decision

The relative clause in claim 1 refers to the receptacle basket, not the meat trolley (paragraph 20). The sealing element may consist of several components and be attached indirectly. « Along » requires neither direct contact nor full-length coverage. A « Leiste » is a long, narrow component (paragraphs 23 to 25). The maintained version is novel over the GLASS VSM 300 machine, whose flexible strip is not attached to the basket, and over EP 0 242 820, whose rubber layers are sheets rather than strips (paragraphs 29 and 30). Inventive step was not contested in the written submissions. The arguments made at the hearing are disregarded as late and, in any event, unpersuasive, for want of a realistic starting point and because of hindsight (paragraphs 31 to 35). Auxiliary requests 3 to 14 are not examined (paragraph 37).

Both embodiments literally reproduce maintained claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11: in the first, the sealing element (metal strip and rubber) is welded to the basket, in the second, attachment by four 28 mm tabs is enough, continuous attachment not being required (paragraphs 39 to 43). The division grants an injunction in the five states, recall with the option of making the products non-infringing by replacing the basket, information, publication, liability for damages and an interim award of EUR 50,000. The value of the case is set at EUR 500,000, costs are split 20% to the claimant and 80% to the defendant (paragraphs 48 and 49). The decision is immediately enforceable without security.

Key points for practice

• A structural feature such as a sealing element may be reproduced by an assembly of parts attached discontinuously (paragraphs 23 and 43).
• A defendant that does not contest inventive step in its written submissions cannot effectively open that debate at the hearing (paragraphs 32 and 33).
• The defendant may be allowed to bring recalled products into conformity, instead of destroying them, by replacing the infringing component.
• Practical point: a proprietor may abandon the granted version at the hearing in favour of an auxiliary request and still obtain most of the relief, at the price of a share of the costs (paragraphs 26 and 49).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 65(2) and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.8, 263.3, 354 and 355.4

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 56, Art. 138(1)(a)

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.