Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel (CoA, 19 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 19 August 2026, given in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_908/2025, UPC_CoA_909/2025 and UPC_CoA_918/2025 (this note concerns file UPC_CoA_908/2025), the Court of Appeal upholds the dismissal of Hartmann Packaging’s infringement action against the Omni-Pac companies based on EP 2 755 901 (a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material). Allowing Omni-Pac’s appeal, it also revokes claim 6 as granted, which the Düsseldorf Local Division had held valid: the patent is maintained only as amended by auxiliary request 2. For practitioners, the decision draws the line between new legal arguments, which are admissible on appeal, and new facts or evidence, which fall under Rule 222.2 RoP, and confirms that a process step the skilled person would reach by routine testing does not support inventive step.

Facts and procedure

Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) owns EP 2 755 901, in force in Germany, France and the Netherlands. It sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel for infringement before the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_115/2024), and they counterclaimed for revocation (UPC_CFI_377/2024). In its decision of 15 October 2025, the Local Division dismissed the infringement action, held claim 1 as granted to lack inventive step over GDM1, held claim 6 as granted valid and revoked the patent beyond auxiliary request 2. Hartmann appealed on infringement (UPC_CoA_908/2025) and on validity (UPC_CoA_909/2025), Omni-Pac appealed on claim 6 (UPC_CoA_918/2025). The language of the proceedings was changed from German to English by agreement, and the oral hearing took place on 9 July 2026.

The applicable law

Claims are interpreted under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol, with the description and drawings always used as explanatory aids (paragraph 48). On appeal, Rule 222.2 RoP allows the Court to disregard facts and evidence not submitted at first instance. It does not cover legal arguments (paragraph 27).

Question

Does feature 2.2 of claim 1, an upwardly extending retainment projection, cover a closure flap, and are claims 1 and 6, as granted and as amended, inventive over GDM1?

Decision

On procedure, Hartmann having dropped equivalence (paragraph 25), the Court admits its new arguments on claim construction but refuses Annexes 31 to 34, which could have been filed earlier and are of little relevance (paragraphs 27 and 32 to 34), general references to first instance submissions are disregarded (paragraphs 37 and 38). Feature 2.2 excludes a traditional locking flap, the retainment projection being distinct from flexible flaps (paragraphs 53, 56 and 61 to 67).

On validity, claim 1 as granted lacks inventive step over GDM1, the choice of pulp being a routine selection of material (paragraphs 105 to 109), auxiliary request 1 fails (paragraphs 113 and 114), auxiliary request 2 is inventive, since GDM1 does not disclose a nose working as a hook onto the lower edge of the aperture (paragraphs 118 to 124). Claim 6 as granted is novel over GDM6 (paragraph 130) but obvious, the compensating deformation step (feature 6.3) being reachable by routine testing (paragraphs 136 to 142), as amended by auxiliary request 2 it is novel and inventive (paragraphs 148 to 150).

On infringement, the contested embodiments have a closure flap rather than an upwardly extending retainment projection: features 2.2 and 2.2.1, and feature 6.1.2.1 of claim 6, are not met (paragraphs 156 to 160). Hartmann bears the costs of the infringement appeal. The costs of the revocation appeals are split 75% to Hartmann and 12.5% to each Omni-Pac company (paragraphs 161 to 163). The value of each set of appeal proceedings is set at EUR 500,000.

Key points for practice

• A new argument on claim construction remains admissible on appeal, as Rule 222.2 RoP only concerns facts and evidence (paragraph 27).
• A document that could have been obtained at first instance and is of little relevance will not be admitted on appeal (paragraphs 32 to 34).
• A process claim may be novel and still fall for lack of inventive step where the distinguishing step results from routine testing (paragraphs 136 to 142).
• Practical point: a patentee defending an amended claim should rely on a structural feature absent from the closest prior art, here the nose working as a hook (paragraphs 118 to 123).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 222.2 and 352

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and 123(2), Rule 43(1)

Case law cited

Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024, Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2025, UPC_CoA_402/2024, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_335/2023, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Hefei v Grundfos, Court of Appeal, 27 May 2026, Amgen v Sanofi and Regeneron, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025

Related decisions

• Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac, 15 October 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division decision under appeal.

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.