M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz v Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret (CFI, 10 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 10 December 2025, given in infringement action UPC_CFI_316/2024 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_547/2024, the Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on the merits concerning EP 2 061 575 B1 (device for the continuous filtering of contaminants from a plastic melt), between M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz, exclusive licensee, with the proprietor Katharina Schulz, and the Turkish company Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret. The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed and literal infringement of claim 1 found, with an injunction for the ten states where the patent is in force, manufacture included, information, recall, removal and destruction. Selling replacement filters is indirect infringement only for filters intended for Altech’s machines, rights being exhausted for those fitted to the proprietor’s machines. The interim award of EUR 100,000 was refused for want of a plausible estimate. The decision also clarifies the burden of setting out an inventive step attack and the exclusion of corrective measures for the means of indirect infringement.

Facts and procedure

The patent, filed on 12 September 2007, is validated in ten States. The opt-out was withdrawn in June 2024 and the EPO opposition ended without a decision. M-A-S targeted the Microfilt/LDF series filters (models LDF 300 and LDF 500), made in Turkey, and disc filters sold as spare parts. It sought an injunction for ten States, information, recall, removal and destruction, damages since 7 September 2013 and EUR 100,000 in interim damages. Altech sought dismissal and counterclaimed for full revocation for lack of inventive step. The proprietor defended the patent, in the alternative in seven amended forms. The hearing took place on 13 November 2025.

The applicable law

Exclusive jurisdiction over the counterclaim follows from Article 32(1)(e) UPCA, and the exclusive licensee’s standing from Article 47(2) UPCA. Amendment of the claim falls under Rule 263. The extent of protection is determined under Article 69 EPC and its Protocol, the same principles applying to infringement and validity (paragraphs 122 and 123).

Question

Are the action and the counterclaim admissible, can a new request filed three days before the hearing be admitted, does the exclusive licensee have standing, including for past claims, how is claim 1 to be construed, is the patent inventive, is it infringed directly or indirectly, and what remedies should be ordered?

Decision

The action is admissible and the division’s jurisdiction is deemed accepted, no preliminary objection having been lodged within the Rule 19 period (paragraphs 93 and 94). The counterclaim is admissible, as no opt-out is in force and the ground based on the combination of NK 1 and NK 2 is identified (paragraphs 95 to 98). The new request of 10 November 2025 was not admitted: it is an amendment under Rule 263, for which M-A-S neither sought leave nor explained why it could not have been made earlier (paragraphs 99 to 102). The exclusive licensee has standing, the agreement filed being a fresh grant of exclusive rights rather than mere confirmation of an oral licence (paragraphs 103 to 105), the assignment of past claims is valid under Austrian law (paragraphs 106 to 108). On construction, the words « for continuous filtering » state a purpose requiring suitability, not actual operation (paragraphs 130, 131 and 156), the rotating body must be hollow in the sense of allowing flow through, without being closed on all sides (paragraphs 134 to 137), the filter element may consist of several parts and the claim does not exclude further filters (paragraphs 138 to 148). A parallel arrangement of the screw is optional (paragraph 155), the screw’s cooperation with the filter insert does not require uninterrupted cleaning (paragraphs 157 to 162), and the position of the scraper « behind » the screw is assessed in the contact zone between the two parts (paragraphs 163 to 171).

The counterclaim was dismissed. Starting from NK 1, which describes a filter tube presented as advantageous, the skilled person had no incentive to change the filter. NK 2 discloses a fixed wire mesh disc filter, which cannot be scraped, so the combination does not lead to the invention (paragraphs 172 to 208). The other documents, merely cited without a concrete attack, were disregarded: the revocation claimant must explain their content and why and how the skilled person would combine them, any later attack being an amendment subject to Rule 263 (paragraphs 209 to 212).

Literal infringement was established, the screw’s intermittent stopping depending on the degree of contamination being irrelevant for an apparatus claim (paragraphs 213 to 244). Offers result from the website, a flyer, an offer to a Belgian customer made before the UPCA entered into force and attributable to Altech as co-perpetrator with its distributor Altek Endüstri, a 2020 presentation and a trade fair in Amsterdam (paragraphs 245 to 265). Supplying filter discs is indirect infringement for those intended for Altech’s machines. For those intended for the proprietor’s machines, replacing a wear part changed every two to four weeks is normal maintenance, and rights are exhausted (paragraphs 266 to 285).

The injunction covers manufacture although the machines are made in Turkey, and extends to all states where the patent has effect without acts having to be shown in each (paragraphs 290 and 291, Art. 34 UPCA). Recall, removal and destruction are not disproportionate, the burden of proof lying on the infringer, and the 30-day time limit is set in the decision (paragraphs 292 to 296 and 299). Article 72 UPCA limits neither those measures nor the information, and the claims are not time-barred, as the proprietor has known of the acts only since 19 October 2023 (paragraphs 297 and 300 to 306). The interim award of EUR 100,000 was refused for want of an estimate based on facts (paragraphs 307 to 310). For the filters, an outright ban was ordered, but no recall, removal or destruction, which apply only to products that are the subject of the patent (paragraphs 313 to 315). The operative part grants the injunction subject to penalty payments of up to EUR 50,000 per machine and EUR 7,500 per filter, information from 7 September 2013, destruction, recall and removal within 30 days, otherwise dismisses the action, dismisses the counterclaim, splits the costs of the action 70% to Altech and 30% to the claimant, puts the costs of the counterclaim on Altech, sets the value of each claim at EUR 500,000 and the ceiling for recoverable representation costs at EUR 112,000 in total. The panel was presided over by Judge Thomas.

Key points for practice

• A request filed shortly before the hearing, even in response to an order of the judge-rapporteur, remains subject to the conditions of Rule 263 (paragraphs 99 to 102).
• A written agreement granting exclusive rights afresh gives the licensee standing, with no need to prove the earlier oral licence (paragraph 105).
• A revocation claimant relying on lack of inventive step must explain the content of the documents and why and how the skilled person would combine them. A mere list of documents is not enough (paragraphs 209 to 212).
• Replacing a wear part on a machine put on the market by the proprietor is maintenance, not remaking. For indirect infringement only a prohibition is ordered, without recall or destruction of the means (paragraphs 277 to 285 and 314).
• Practical point: a statement of purpose in an apparatus claim only requires suitability for that purpose, which widens the range of devices that may fall within it.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25(a), 26(1), 29, 32(1)(e), 34, 47(2), 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 72 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 118.5, 118.8, 119, 263, 352.1 and 354.4

European Patent Convention

Art. 56 and Art. 69 and Protocol

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 24(4), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Belkin v Koninklijke Philips, Court of Appeal, 30 May 2025, Belkin v Koninklijke Philips, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Brita v Aquashield, Munich Local Division, 22 August 2025, Dolle v Fakro, Hamburg Local Division, 5 November 2025, Tridonic v CUPOWER, Düsseldorf Local Division, 7 March 2025, F. Hoffmann-La Roche v A. Menarini Diagnostics, Düsseldorf Local Division, 5 December 2025, Panasonic v OPPO, Mannheim Local Division, 22 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_140/2023)

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.