Fives ECL v REEL (CFI, 17 November 2023)

Date	17 November 2023
Court	CFI
Division	Hamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Determination of damages and compensation
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_274/2023
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_274/2023–applicationprocessedinhardcopyonly(outsideCMS)
Parties	Fives ECL, SAS v. REEL GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

11 February 2026 : Fives ECL v REEL (CFI, 11 February 2026) UPC_CFI_274/2023

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 an order of 17 November 2023 (UPC_CFI_559935/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division (S. Klepsch) upheld REEL GmbH’s Preliminary objection and rejected Fives ECL, SAS’s application for the UPC to determine the damages owed under a final judgment of the Düsseldorf Regional Court of 9 August 2022 (4c O 1/21), which had found infringement of the German part of EP 1 740 740. She also refused to recognise that judgment under Art. 36(3) of the Brussels I recast Regulation.

Question

Does the UPC have jurisdiction to determine damages on the basis of a final national infringement judgment, and can recognition of that judgment found such jurisdiction?

Decision

The list of actions in Art. 32(1) UPCA is exhaustive. Point (f), which concerns compensation for provisional protection conferred by a published application, does not apply. Nor does point (a): the UPC must first find infringement itself, remedies (Arts. 63, 64, 67, 68 and 80) and the procedure under Rules 125 to 144 RoP being merely ancillary. A final national judgment, on the contrary, bars a fresh examination of the same national part. Recognition does not create jurisdiction: Art. 71b(1) of the Brussels I recast Regulation governs jurisdiction in relation to third states, not the allocation between the UPC and its Member States, and Art. 36 presupposes a court that already has jurisdiction. The other objections are not examined.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a proprietor holding a national infringement judgment must have its damages quantified by the national court, the UPC determines damages only following its own decision on infringement.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 32(1)(a) and (f) and (2), Arts. 63, 64, 67, 68, 73(1), 80 and 83
Rules of Procedure: Rules 19.1(a), 20.1, 125 to 144, 220.1(a) and 361
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012: Arts. 36, 45 and 71b(1)

Related decisions

Fives ECL v REEL, 11 February 2026, later decision on the determination of damages.

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.

Decisions in the same proceedings

Fives ECL v REEL (CFI, 2026-02-11), 11 February 2026

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
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

UPC_CFI_274/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

defendantREEL GmbH8 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantFives ECL, SAS3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

17 November 2023 Fives ECL v REEL (CFI, 17 November 2023) Determination of damages and compensation · UPC_CFI_274/2023
11 February 2026 Fives ECL v REEL (CFI, 11 February 2026) Determination of damages and compensation · UPC_CFI_274/2023
La division locale de Hambourg applique le droit allemand aux faits antérieurs au 1er juin 2023 et rejette la demande de 6 500 000 euros, le manque à gagner et le lien de causalité n'étant pas établis, solution identique au regard de l'article 68 de l'Accord.
14 October 2026 Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, 14 October 2026) Generic · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
Saisie par REEL d’une demande fondée sur la règle 262A, la juge-rapporteure de la cour d’appel réserve à titre provisoire l’accès aux informations litigieuses aux représentants de Fives, dans l’attente de sa décision et après avoir invité Fives à présenter ses observations.
26 October 2026 Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, UPC_CoA_42/2026, 26 October 2026) Generic · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La juge-rapporteure de la cour d’appel fait droit, sans opposition de Fives, à la demande de REEL de limiter l’accès aux informations confidentielles de son mémoire en réponse aux représentants de Fives et à des personnes nommément désignées du groupe Fives.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Determination of damages and compensation
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La JUB se déclare incompétente pour fixer les dommages et intérêts découlant d'un jugement national définitif de contrefaçon, dont la reconnaissance au titre du règlement Bruxelles I bis est refusée.
Appeal: An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 1 740 740 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Fives ECL v REEL (CFI, 11 February 2026) cited in this record

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 1 740 740` Compact service module which is intended for electrolytic aluminium production plants recorded proprietor: Fives ECL SAS	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 10 other decision(s): Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, 17 July 2026) · Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, 17 June 2026) · REEL International v Fives ECL (CFI, 24 March 2026) · Fives ECL v REEL (CFI, 11 February 2026) · Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, 16 January 2025) · Fives ECL v REEl (CFI, 25 January 2024) · Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, 14 October 2026) · Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, UPC_CoA_42/2026, 26 October 2026)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) 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.