Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump v Grundfos (CoA, UPC_CoA_622/2025, 27 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 27 May 2026 in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_622/2025 and UPC_CoA_623/2025, the Court of Appeal (second panel) ruled on Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump’s appeals against the decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division of 8 May 2025, which had found infringement of Grundfos Holding’s EP 2 778 423 and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation. The Court sets that decision aside: it partially revokes the patent (claims 1 to 3, 5 and 11) and dismisses the infringement action, which relied only on claims held unpatentable.

For practitioners, the value of the decision lies mainly in its reasoning on method: it clarifies when an argument raised on appeal is new within the meaning of Rule 222.2 RoP, confirms that claim features are construed in the light of the claim as a whole, and assesses inventive step claim by claim.

Facts and procedure

Grundfos alleged that Hefei offered and sold heating circulator pumps in Germany, France and Italy. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the infringement action and dismissed the counterclaim. On appeal, Hefei seeks dismissal of the action and revocation of the patent in full. Grundfos asks for the appeals to be dismissed and, in the alternative, for the patent to be maintained on auxiliary requests. A joint oral hearing on both appeals took place on 26 February 2026.

The applicable law

The court construes claim 1 on the basis of its German text alone, which is authentic under Art. 70(1) EPC (paragraph 40). It relies on Rule 222.2 RoP for the admission of new arguments and evidence on appeal, and considers under Rule 263.1 RoP whether introducing new combinations of prior art amounts to an amendment of the case (paragraphs 77 to 79).

Question

Do features 4.1 and 4.2 of claim 1 (« Umschalten » and « Zuschalten » of an external control, detection of a connected external control) bear the meaning given by the Local Division, and are claim 1 and the dependent claims inventive over D5 (DE 101 39 510 A1) combined with common general knowledge?

Decision

On construction, the court departs from the Local Division: « Umschalten » means a lasting switch to external control and « Zuschalten » the connection on demand of an external speed control, not parallel internal and external control (paragraphs 31 to 37). Feature 4.1 is met if the means are suitable for either alternative (paragraphs 41 to 53), the detection required by feature 4.2 may be triggered by an external control signal, with no active check for the absence of a connection and no further decision logic (paragraphs 59 to 71).

On admissibility, an argument that merely adds detail to a submission already sufficient at first instance is not new. An undisputed submission cannot as a rule be rejected as late. The supporting evidence is admitted (paragraphs 91 to 94). By contrast, an argument based on a document already on file is new if the specific technical teaching the skilled person would draw from it was not put to the first-instance court.

On validity, D5 is a realistic starting point (paragraphs 87 to 90) and claim 1 lacks inventive step (paragraph 108). The same applies to claims 2 and 3 and, in part, to claims 5 and 11, while claims 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are held patentable. Claim 8 is not examined for lack of legal interest (paragraphs 110 to 149). Auxiliary requests 1 to 7, which combine those claims or merely add clarifications without substantive effect, are not patentable (paragraphs 150 to 167).

The appeal on infringement succeeds, since Grundfos relied only on claims 1, 5 and 11 and the auxiliary requests (paragraph 168). A stay pending Shinhoo Europe’s revocation action and a decision subject to a condition subsequent are refused (paragraph 169). The order sets aside the decision of 8 May 2025, revokes the patent as regards claims 1 to 3, 5 and 11 insofar as they do not refer back to the remaining claims, and dismisses the rest of the counterclaim and the infringement action. Grundfos bears, for both instances, the costs of the infringement action and 75% of those of the counterclaim, Hefei 25%, the value of each appeal is set at EUR 1,000,000 (paragraphs 170 to 172).

Key points for practice

• A term may be read differently within the same claim where the description supports it or the features serve different functions.
• Adding detail on appeal to facts already pleaded at first instance is not a new argument. Relying on a new teaching of a document already filed may be.
• Practical point: inventive step arguments should set out at first instance the concrete teaching drawn from each prior art document, or they risk being inadmissible on appeal.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 56(1) and 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.2(a), 220.5, 222.2, 263, 263.1 and 302.3

European Patent Convention

Art. 70(1)

Case law cited

VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_1/2024), Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_383/2024), Nanostring v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Rematec v Europe Forestry, Court of Appeal, 17 February 2026

Related decisions

• Grundfos v Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump, 8 May 2025, first-instance decision under appeal.
• Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump v Grundfos, 19 December 2025, earlier Court of Appeal order on costs.

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.