Robert Bosch v OWIM (CFI, UPC_CFI_565/2025, 31 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 4 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 31 July 2026, published on 3 November 2026 (UPC_CFI_565/2025 and UPC_CFI_841/2025), the Mannheim Local Division largely upholds Robert Bosch’s action against OWIM, maker of the Parkside brand, and three companies of the Lidl group. It finds EP 2 318 184 valid as granted and infringed by the PABSP 20 Li C3 and C4 drill drivers in Germany and France, but dismisses the claim for the United Kingdom, Bosch having failed to establish the applicable English law sufficiently.

Facts and procedure

EP 2 318 184, filed in 2009 and granted in 2017, protects a switchable gearbox for a hand-held power tool in which a single retaining ring locks the shift member to the housing and provides axial support for the spring-loaded ring gear. The patent is in force in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Bosch sued OWIM, which makes the devices, the operator of Lidl’s German online shop, the company responsible for purchasing for German stores, and Lidl Stiftung, which coordinates purchasing for all countries.

OWIM and Lidl Digital Deutschland counterclaimed for revocation of the German, French and British parts of the patent for lack of novelty and inventive step over five prior art items, including a 2007 Makita drill.

Question

What is the scope of the term retaining ring (“Sicherungsring”), is the patent valid over the cited prior art, and can the UPC rule on infringement and validity of the British part?

Decision

The Division accepts international jurisdiction over all defendants, domiciled in Germany, including for infringement of the British part, in line with BSH Hausgeräte and Fujifilm v Kodak. The counterclaim is however inadmissible for the United Kingdom, since the UPC cannot revoke that part of the patent, whose validity is examined only as a defence and with effect between the parties. Jurisdiction also covers acts committed before 1 June 2023.

The retaining ring is not limited to DIN 471 standard rings. The skilled person understands it as a flat annular part whose axial thickness is small compared with its diameter, which excludes a sleeve or a housing, consistently with the patent’s aim of compactness. Moreover, the spindle is “drivable” by the ring gear even if the latter remains stationary in normal operation, as long as it transmits torque. No prior art discloses such a ring, the parts relied on being sleeves or housing parts of considerable axial height, and the defendants show no incentive to modify them. The patent is maintained as granted.

Literal infringement is found for Germany against all defendants and for France against OWIM and Lidl Stiftung. For the United Kingdom, Bosch produced provisions of English law without explaining how they apply to the alleged facts (links to British websites, a loyalty scheme, third-party videos), so the claim is dismissed. The Division orders an injunction, recall, removal from the channels of commerce and destruction, information and rendering of accounts since 20 October 2017, and declares liability for damages. It refuses publication of the judgment for lack of particular justification, sets the penalty at EUR 600 per infringing product (for a retail price of EUR 59) and EUR 10,000 per day for the information order, without requiring security. Costs are borne by the defendants and the value of the case is set at EUR 2 million.

Key points for practice

• A common technical term is not confined to a national industrial standard but is read in the light of the patent’s function and purpose.
• The UPC may hear infringement of the British part of a European patent against a defendant domiciled in a Member State, but cannot revoke that part.
• A claimant relying on the law of a third State must set out its content and its application to the acts of each defendant.
• Penalty payments may be calibrated per infringing product, by reference to the retail price.

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement

Articles 25(a), 31, 32(1)(e), 33(1)(a), 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 80 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.7, 118.8 and 191

EPC

Articles 54, 56 and 138

Brussels I bis Regulation

Articles 4, 7(2), 24(4), 26, 71a and 71b

Case law cited

BSH Hausgeräte (CJEU, C-339/22, 25 February 2025), Fujifilm v Kodak (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_312/2025, 2 June 2026), NanoString v 10x Genomics (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_335/2023, 26 February 2024), Meril v Edwards (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_464/2024, 25 November 2025), Hurom v NUC (Mannheim Local Division, UPC_CFI_159/2024 and UPC_CFI_162/2024, 11 March 2025).

Related decisions

• Court of Appeal, 2 June 2026, Kodak v Fujifilm: UPC jurisdiction over non-UPC parts of a European patent

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 4 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.