Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere Innovations (CoA, 17 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a final decision of 17 August 2026, given in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_365/2025 (infringement) and UPC_CoA_367/2025 (counterclaim for revocation), the Court of Appeal rules on Knaus Tabbert AG’s appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division’s decision of 10 April 2025 on EP 3 356 109 (a vehicle frame with a structural part made of self-expanding foam resin). The Court dismissed Knaus Tabbert’s appeals both on the counterclaim (paragraph 22) and on the infringement action: the patent is valid and infringement is confirmed, together with the injunction, recall, removal, destruction, information, an interim award of EUR 100,000 and compensation for the period of provisional protection in Germany, Knaus Tabbert bears the costs and the value of each appeal is set at EUR 500,000.

The decision matters first for its fifteen headnotes: the Court separates the UPC’s jurisdiction from the temporal application of substantive law, and subjects facts completed before 1 June 2023, including damages and certain information claims, to national law. It also clarifies the scope of product claims defined by their manufacturing process.

Facts and procedure

Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and the co-proprietor of EP 3 356 109, in force in Germany, France, Italy and Slovenia, sued Knaus Tabbert AG for infringement in respect of the AZUR and DESEO caravans. The Düsseldorf Local Division largely granted the action and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_50/2024). On appeal, Knaus Tabbert sought full revocation of the patent for the four states or dismissal of the action, and in the alternative a stay and a referral of ten questions to the CJEU. The respondents defended the patent, alternatively in seventeen auxiliary requests. After the hearing of 22 January 2026, settlement talks failed on 6 May 2026.

The applicable law

The Court applies Art. 138(1) EPC on validity and, according to its headnotes, Art. 24 UPCA read with Art. 8(1) of the Rome II Regulation to identify the law governing facts before 1 June 2023, Arts 63, 64, 67, 68 and 72 UPCA being substantive provisions (headnotes VI to VIII). Arts 67 and 68 UPCA track Arts 8 and 13(1) of Directive 2004/48 (headnotes XIV and XV).

Question

Is the patent valid over the prior art relied on, how are product features defined by a process to be construed, and which substantive law governs acts of infringement committed before the UPCA entered into force?

Decision

On validity, the skilled person is an engineer in vehicle structural design who would consult a materials specialist if needed (paragraphs 29 to 31). A « frame » is a load-bearing component distinct from the self-supporting body (paragraphs 33 to 43). Adding a manufacturing process leaves a product claim a product claim, limited to products so made only where the claimed properties cannot be obtained otherwise (paragraphs 55 to 62). The order of the steps in claim 10 is binding here for technical reasons (paragraph 79). Insufficiency fails (paragraphs 80 to 83), and WK3, WK5 and WK7 do not anticipate (paragraphs 91 to 145).

No prior art discloses a vehicle frame in which a structural part forms a load-bearing part: EP 257 (WK26) concerns a self-supporting body, and DE 364 (WK31), drawings WK15 and WK37 and the alleged prior use in caravans show no frame within the meaning of the patent, while EP 150 is not in issue on appeal (paragraphs 146 to 200). Inventive step was upheld over DE 933, EP 189 and DE 364, Knaus Tabbert not having substantiated, feature by feature, how a load-bearing frame was suggested (paragraphs 201 to 245). The Japanese document JP 502, relied on for the first time on appeal, was not admitted: the search should have been carried out at first instance and its cost does not excuse the delay (Rule 222.2 RoP, paragraphs 246 to 251).

On the action, the UPC has jurisdiction over acts before 1 June 2023, but the substantive law governing such completed facts is the national law designated by Article 8(1) of Rome II, injunctions and corrective measures fall under the UPCA where infringement continued, whereas damages and substantive information claims for earlier acts fall under national law (paragraphs 253 to 264). A general reference to first-instance pleadings does not meet Rule 226 RoP (paragraphs 265 and 266). Internet advertising is an offer. The DESEO and AZUR caravans use the claims, the use of two moulds and a wax layer not preventing the protective layer feature. No prior-use right or licence was established (paragraphs 267 to 292). National law must be pleaded and proved by the party relying on it, but national rules implementing Articles 8 and 13 of Directive 2004/48 are presumed to match Articles 67 and 68 UPCA, German limitation was not established (paragraphs 293 to 302). The interim award of EUR 100,000, based on a settlement offer by Knaus Tabbert and on sales (almost 600 DESEO and 70 AZUR), was upheld under Rule 119 RoP, which also applies to earlier acts (paragraphs 303 to 309). Information, recall, removal and destruction (Art. 64 UPCA), German compensation for 8 September 2018 to 8 April 2022 and a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 were upheld (paragraphs 310 to 318). A preliminary reference was refused, the questions being irrelevant, already settled or obvious (paragraphs 320 to 328), and the costs of the appeal were awarded against Knaus Tabbert (paragraph 329).

Key points for practice

• The UPC distinguishes its jurisdiction, which covers facts before 1 June 2023, from the substantive law governing those facts, which remains national law (headnotes V to VIII).
• A party relying on specific content of national law must plead and prove it. National rules implementing Directive 2004/48 are, however, presumed to match Articles 67 and 68 UPCA (paragraphs 295 to 297).
• New prior art filed on appeal is excluded where the search could have been made at first instance, its cost not excusing the delay (paragraphs 246 to 251).
• Practical point: where infringement began before 1 June 2023, claims for damages and information for the earlier period must be built on the national law of each state (headnotes X and XI).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 3, 21, 24, 25, 32, 54, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 72 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 119, 175.1, 222.1, 222.2, 226, 263.1, 263.2, 266.1, 266.5 and 352.1

European Patent Convention

Arts 54, 56, 67 and 138(1)(b)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Arts 8 and 13(1)

Other provisions

Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), Arts 8(1) and 22, TFEU, Art. 267, German Patent Act (PatG), sections 12, 139 and 140b, IntPatÜG, Art. II section 1, German Civil Code (BGB), sections 195 and 199

Case law cited

XSYS v Esko, Court of Appeal, 2 June 2025, Fives v Reel, Court of Appeal, 16 January 2025, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva, Court of Appeal, 13 August 2025, Sinocare v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 30 March 2026, SharkNinja v Dyson, Court of Appeal, 9 October 2024, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025

Related decisions

• Yellow Sphere Innovations v Knaus Tabbert, 10 April 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.