Corning v TCL Deutschland (CFI, UPC_CFI_819/2024, 16 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 16 April 2026 in the joined infringement action (UPC_CFI_819/2024) and counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_414/2025), the Mannheim Local Division ruled on Corning’s EP 3 296 274 B1, concerning a downdraw process for producing alkali-free glass sheets for LCD substrates. It dismisses the counterclaim, finds the action largely well founded against three TCL companies and dismisses it against TCL Belgium, a holding company whose control over operations was not shown. For practitioners, the decision holds that the dispute covers any glass made by the patented process and sourced from unlicensed suppliers, not merely the television tested, and that a denial limited to the present does not contest past infringement.

Facts and procedure

Corning originally sued several groups of television manufacturers. The claims against LG Electronics and Hisense were withdrawn after settlements, the withdrawals being recorded on 3 October 2025 and 18 February 2026 (paragraphs 4 and 5). The preliminary objections were rejected on 3 April 2025 (paragraph 19). Corning bought six ‘TCL 32L5A’ televisions in Germany and analysed their glass (paragraph 15). It seeks relief only for the German part of the patent, while revocation is sought for the German and French parts. A parallel revocation action by TCL Europe was dismissed by the Munich Central Division on 24 February 2026 (paragraph 17).

The applicable law

Validity is assessed under Art. 54, 56, 76 and 138(1)(a) to (c) EPC and Art. 65(2) UPCA. Infringement of a process and of its direct products falls under Art. 25(c) UPCA, the remedies rest on Art. 63, 64, 67 and 68 UPCA.

Question

Does the patent withstand the attacks for added matter, insufficiency, lack of novelty and lack of inventive step, and are the TCL companies liable for infringement through importing and selling televisions incorporating glass made by the patented process?

Decision

The Division construes ‘alkali-free’ according to the patent’s own definition (no more than 0.1 mol% alkali oxides), the downdraw process with a minimum liquidus viscosity, and the exclusion of purposely added arsenic and antimony, residual traces being tolerated (paragraphs 56 to 84). It rejects added matter and insufficiency, relying on the Munich section’s decision (paragraphs 86 to 96), novelty over CC11, which does not directly and unambiguously disclose feature 1.2 combined with the others (paragraphs 106 to 116), and inventive step from CC19, CC20 and CC27, for want of any prompt to replace arsenic or antimony with tin oxide (paragraphs 117 to 184). A Chinese appellate judgment relied on by the defendants is not persuasive (paragraphs 186 to 189).

The dispute covers any glass made according to claim 1 and sourced from unlicensed suppliers (paragraphs 193 to 199). As the defendants contested infringement only for the present, past infringement is treated as undisputed (paragraphs 200 to 205). The action against TCL Belgium is dismissed (paragraphs 212 to 215). The Division finds a risk of repetition, rejects disproportionality and grants an injunction valid until 28 June 2026 (paragraph 225), recall and destruction, information and liability for damages in principle (paragraphs 218 to 230).

No model or supplier is excluded in advance, only the chemical properties of the glass being relevant (paragraphs 229 to 232). A one-month grace period after publication of grant limits damages and information to acts after 27 May 2023 (paragraph 244). Publication is refused for lack of a sufficient legitimate interest for a mass product (paragraphs 245 to 247). The order enjoins the three TCL companies from offering and placing on the market in Germany, requires information, recall, removal and destruction within six weeks, declares liability for damages since 27 May 2023, sets penalty payments of EUR 100,000, 50,000 and 5,000 per day, and dismisses the counterclaim and the rest of the action (paragraph 249). Taking into account the withdrawals against Hisense and LG, Corning bears two thirds of the court fees and of its own costs and TCL Belgium’s costs, the three defendants found liable bearing one third of the court fees and of Corning’s costs, plus the costs of the counterclaim. The value of each action is set at EUR 5,000,000 (paragraphs 251 to 255).

Key points for practice

• The subject matter of the dispute is defined by the claimed process and the chemical properties of the glass, not by the trade designation of the product tested (paragraphs 199 and 230).
• A denial of infringement confined to the date of the hearing leaves past infringement undisputed, with consequences for information and damages.
• A holding company’s liability requires concrete proof of its control over the infringing subsidiary’s operations.
• Practical point: a defendant disputing infringement must do so for the whole period in issue and for each source of supply, failing which past infringement is taken as established.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25(c), 31, 33, 54, 63, 64, 65(2), 67, 68, 69 and 80

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 19, 25.1, 104, 118.5, 118.8, 150.2, 171, 262A, 352.1, 354.1, 354.3, 355.2 and 370.6

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 56, Art. 76, Art. 138(1)(a) to (c)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 7(2), 24(4) and 71b(1)

Case law cited

TCL Europe v Corning, Munich Central Division, 24 February 2026, Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, expert v Seoul Viosys, Court of Appeal, 2 October 2025, Rematec v Europe Forestry, Court of Appeal, 17 February 2026, Dyson v Dreame, Court of Appeal, 6 March 2026, DISH v AYLO, Mannheim Local Division, 23 April 2025, GSK v Moderna, The Hague Local Division, 18 February 2026, Fingon v Samsung, Mannheim Local Division, 5 June 2025

Related decisions

• Corning v Hisense Gorenje Germany, 3 October 2025, withdrawal as regards LG Electronics.
• Corning v Hisense Gorenje Germany, 18 February 2026, withdrawal as regards Hisense.

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.