Brita v Wessper (CFI, 16 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision on the merits delivered on 16 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_779/2024), in German, the Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on Brita’s indirect infringement action against Wessper, a Polish maker of ‘AquaMax’ filter cartridges for Brita’s ‘PerfectFit’ jugs, under EP 1 748 830 B1, which expired on 27 April 2025. The Division accepts jurisdiction, rejects the narrow constructions put forward by Wessper and finds the objective elements of indirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA satisfied, the cartridge relating to an essential element of the invention. It rejects exhaustion, since replacing the cartridge amounts to remaking the claimed combination, and orders Wessper to provide information and pay damages for the period from 10 December 2019 to 27 April 2025.

Facts and procedure

The patent, entitled ‘device for filtering liquids’, was in force in Germany, Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Liechtenstein and Lithuania, among others. After expiry, Brita declared the injunction claim settled and sought, for the rest, information and rendering of accounts, a penalty payment, damages in principle and a declaration of indirect infringement (paragraphs 21 and 23). Wessper raised a jurisdictional objection as to Liechtenstein. Brita withdrew that part at the hearing of 27 March 2026, with the defendant’s consent (paragraphs 22 and 65). Wessper also relies on exhaustion and a licence (paragraphs 58 and 59).

The applicable law

Indirect infringement is governed by Art. 26(1) UPCA, and the extent of protection by Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol on interpretation. Jurisdiction over a Polish defendant and for non-UPC states rests on Art. 7(2), 71a and 71b of Regulation 1215/2012.

Question

Are filter cartridges intended for use with the proprietor’s jugs means relating to an essential element of an invention combining funnel and cartridge, within the meaning of Art. 26 UPCA?

Decision

The Division accepts jurisdiction, the Liechtenstein objection having become moot (paragraphs 62 to 67). It construes claims 1, 13, 14 and 15 in combination and rejects Wessper’s narrow readings: the sealing edge need not sit at the very top of the opening (paragraphs 95 to 97 and 118 to 121), the fixing means requires no audible or tactile signal (paragraphs 102 and 126 to 128) and the throttle device is formed by the first fixing means as a whole (paragraphs 134 to 139).

Objective suitability does not require the other component to exist in practice, a point that goes to the subjective element (paragraphs 108 and 109). All features named in the claim are in principle essential, without having to form the core of the invention. The cartridge, which is the subject of several features and forms the throttle device with the funnel, is an essential element (paragraphs 140 to 143). The double territorial link is established by sales in Germany through Amazon, and private consumers are not persons entitled under Art. 26(3) UPCA (paragraphs 145 and 146), the subjective element follows from the cartridges being presented as replacements for Brita filters (paragraphs 147 to 149).

On exhaustion, a filter cartridge is in principle a wear part whose replacement is normal use. It is otherwise where the technical effects of the invention are reflected in the replaced part, which is assessed against the claim combination relied on. Here, the cartridge, whose spike guides its insertion and prevents it from tilting, embodies part of the teaching: replacing it amounts to remaking, and exhaustion is rejected (paragraphs 150 to 164). The UPCA applies to sales begun before 1 June 2023 and continued afterwards, the withdrawn opt-out being irrelevant (paragraph 166). The claim for an injunction is dismissed as having become devoid of purpose on expiry of the patent, although it would have succeeded (paragraphs 170 to 172). The order requires information within 30 days for Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy and Lithuania, with penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000, declares indirect infringement and liability for damages, allows the withdrawal for Liechtenstein, orders Wessper to bear the costs and sets the value in dispute at EUR 1,000,000, with a ceiling on recoverable costs of EUR 112,000, no security is ordered (paragraphs 173 and 174).

Key points for practice

• For the Düsseldorf Division, every claim feature, including those in the preamble, is in principle an essential element under Art. 26.
• The objective suitability of a consumable is assessed independently of whether the product it works with actually exists.
• Exhaustion is assessed against the claim combination relied on: a wear part embodying part of its teaching is not freely replaceable (paragraphs 159 to 164).
• Practical point: a proprietor should rely on the claim combination whose technical effect shows in the consumable, while the defence must document that the part is a mere wear part.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 26, 27(a), 29, 32(1), 63, 67, 68 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 118.8, 265, 352.1, 354.4 and 360

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and Protocol on its interpretation

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 7(2), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025, 10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Brita v Aquashield, Munich Local Division, 22 August 2025

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.