Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac Ekco (CFI, 4 March 2025)
| Date | 4 March 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Case number(s) | App_1153/2025 |
| Registry reference | App_1153/2025 |
| Parties | Brodrene Hartmann A/S |
| Language | German |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 4 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_115/2024 and UPC_CFI_377/2024, ACT_13359/2024, CC_39587/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division (Thomas) refused Hartmann Packaging (formerly Brødrene Hartmann), claimant in the infringement action on EP 2 755 901, and the defendants Omni-Pac Ekco and Omni-Pac leave to file a further written pleading on infringement (Rule 36). The order sets limits on the late introduction of an argument of infringement by equivalence.
Question
May a claimant introduce, in its rejoinder on the counterclaim for revocation, a new argument of infringement by equivalence, and then obtain leave for a further pleading on that point?
Decision
Rule 36 allows further pleadings on a reasoned request, but each party normally has two written pleadings on infringement and the discretion requires substantial reasons. Material put forward outside the permitted pleadings is disregarded. The supplementary expert opinion on construction and scope of protection could be included in the rejoinder without leave, since that issue also concerns the counterclaim. The equivalence argument, new and unrelated to the counterclaim, did require prior leave. The request made two months after the rejoinder, on 8 January 2025, was late and would delay the case. It was not adequately justified, and Rule 30.1(b) did not help since the feature had been disputed since the statement of defence. The defendants’ mirror request fell away.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: an equivalence argument must be made in the infringement pleadings or through a prompt and reasoned request for leave, the rejoinder on the counterclaim is no substitute.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 30.1(b) and 36
- Case law cited
- Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 October 2024, Grundfos v Hefei, Düsseldorf Local Division, 26 February 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.
Going further
Lexicon: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).
Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- German from the language of proceedings
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Parties
- claimantBrodrene Hartmann A/S3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les demandes d'autorisation de mémoires supplémentaires sur la contrefaçon sont rejetées. Le moyen d'équivalence introduit dans la duplique à la demande reconventionnelle n'est pas admis.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 2 755 901mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Grundfos Holding v Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump (CFI, 26 February 2025) cited in this record
- Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 30 October 2024) cited in this record
- TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik v IPG Laser (CFI, ORD_35948/2025, 12 September 2025) cites this decision
- Dolby International v Beko Germany (CFI, 14 August 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 755 901 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel (CoA, 19 Aug · Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel (CFI, 15 Oct · Brodrene Hartmann v Omni-Pac Verpackungsmittel (CFI, 21 August 2025) · Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel (CFI, 20 Mar | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.