Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 17 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 17 February 2026, given in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_302/2025 and UPC_CoA_305/2025, the Court of Appeal set aside in full the Mannheim Local Division decision of 31 January 2025, which had revoked Rematec’s EP 2 548 648, concerning a mill, and dismissed the infringement action. The court dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, found direct infringement of claim 1 and indirect infringement of claim 15 by Europe Forestry’s mills with webs spaced at least 70 mm apart, and granted an injunction for twelve States with recall, information, penalty payments and damages. The decision shows the Court of Appeal deciding infringement itself without remittal.

Facts and procedure

Rematec sued Europe Forestry, which offered « Europe Grinders » and « Europe Chip Mills » in brochures. The defendant counterclaimed for revocation. The Mannheim division held claims 1 and 15 unpatentable, as granted and as amended by the auxiliary requests, and dismissed the action without examining infringement (paragraphs 13 and 14). Rematec appealed, seeking maintenance of the patent and infringement relief (paragraph 17). The hearing took place on 18 December 2025.

The applicable law

Validity is assessed under Arts 52, 54 and 138 EPC, infringement under Arts 25 and 26 UPCA. Remedies fall under Arts 63, 64, 67 and 68 UPCA. The court decides the merits under Art. 75 UPCA, remittal requiring exceptional circumstances (Rule 242.2(b)).

Question

Is the feature of « substantially radial » feed and discharge to be assessed by reference to the flow of material as a whole, and do the mills offered in the defendant’s brochures reproduce a « sieve-free » mill within claim 1?

Decision

On construction, feature 1d concerns radial feed and discharge of the material as a whole, not the path of each particle. Openings are not enough if the actual flow is tangential, and the division could not rely on adjacent devices outside the claim (paragraphs 32 to 34). « Substantially radial » means more radial than tangential (paragraph 39). A mill remains « sieve-free » where the discharge opening does not hold back material that has travelled the grinding path (paragraphs 42 to 45).

On validity, claims 1 and 15 are novel over D3, D12, D6, D10 and D11, whose mills operate with tangential flow or lack the claimed arrangement (paragraphs 47 to 75). Inventive step was acknowledged, no document prompting a switch from tangential to radial flow (paragraphs 76 to 90). Remittal was refused, the absence of a first-instance ruling on infringement not being an exceptional circumstance (paragraphs 93 to 96).

On infringement, offering in brochures is offering within Art. 25(a) UPCA (paragraphs 97 to 99). Feature 1g is met where the webs are at least 70 mm apart, as the brochure data confirm, the customer’s choice of spacing being irrelevant (paragraphs 102 to 109), the tests filed did not show sieve-free operation below that spacing (paragraphs 110 to 115). Indirect infringement of claim 15 was found (paragraphs 116 to 118). The injunction was granted, publication refused for lack of a legitimate interest and provisional damages reduced from EUR 50,000 to EUR 20,000 (paragraphs 119 to 132).

Key points for practice

• A flow-direction feature is assessed by how the whole works, not by elements outside the claim (paragraphs 32 to 34).
• The Court of Appeal decides infringement left unexamined at first instance itself, without remittal (paragraphs 93 to 96).
• Distributing brochures is enough to constitute an offer, and the data they publish can establish that features are met (paragraphs 97 to 106).
• Practical point: infringement may be confined to some configurations of a modular product, the proportionate corrective measure then being replacement of the parts concerned (paragraphs 121 to 123).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25(a), Art. 26(1), Art. 56, Art. 63(1), Art. 64, Art. 67, Art. 68(1), Art. 69, Art. 75 and Art. 80

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 119, 220.5, 242.2(b), 302.3 and 354.3

European Patent Convention

Arts 52, 54, 138

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 3

Case law cited

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, Bhagat v Oerlikon, Court of Appeal, 9 December 2025, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal, 18 June 2025, G 1/24

Related decisions

• Rematec v Europe Forestry, 31 January 2025, Mannheim Local Division decision set aside.
• Rematec v Europe Forestry, 30 March 2026, later Court of Appeal order in the same proceedings.

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.