Opens in a new tab

Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac Ekco (CFI, 4 March 2025)

Date4 March 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Case number(s)App_1153/2025
Registry referenceApp_1153/2025
PartiesBrodrene Hartmann A/S
LanguageGerman

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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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.

Proceedings

  • APP_1153/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 755 901Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.