TRUMPF Laser UK v IPG Laser (CFI, 24 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 24 February 2026, given in the infringement action (UPC_CFI_735/2024) and the joined counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_224/2025), the Mannheim Local Division ruled on TRUMPF Laser UK’s EP 2 951 625 B1, which concerns a fibre optic laser combiner, asserted through claim 6 against IPG Laser’s YLS-AMB laser series. The division held the counterclaim admissible but unfounded: claim 6 as granted is valid (paragraphs 120 and 121). The decision is chiefly of interest for its detailed claim construction and its added matter analysis.

It also finds literal infringement of claim 6 and grants an injunction, with information, recall, removal, destruction and an interim award of EUR 115,000, the claims other than the injunction and the interim award being limited to acts after 5 December 2021.

Facts and procedure

TRUMPF Laser UK filed its action on 2 December 2024, IPG Laser filed its defence and counterclaim on 13 March 2025 (paragraphs 31 and 32). Confidentiality orders under Rule 262A were made on 4 April and 8 August 2025 (paragraph 33). The claimant sought, among other things, an injunction for seven States, information, recall and destruction, an interim award of EUR 230,000 and a declaration of liability (paragraph 34), it filed auxiliary amendment requests and requests based on equivalence (paragraphs 34 and 37). The hearing took place on 27 January 2026.

The applicable law

The division relied on Arts 31 and 33 UPCA and Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 for jurisdiction (paragraphs 51 and 52). The counterclaim invoked Art. 138(1)(a) and (c) EPC, read with Arts 54, 56 and 123(2) EPC (paragraph 45).

Question

How should the features of claim 6 relating to the input fibres and the annular high-index region be construed, is the claim as granted valid, and do the YLS-AMB lasers infringe it?

Decision

An input fibre need only be capable of being connected to a laser in a technically sensible way (paragraphs 73 and 74), the claim requires a single inner fibre (paragraphs 75 to 82), outer fibres serving other purposes are not input fibres (paragraphs 89 and 90), equal diameters allow for manufacturing tolerances (paragraphs 95 to 97), the high-index annular region overlies the outer fibres but not the inner fibre (paragraphs 104 to 110).

Added matter is rejected, since the application as filed discloses several secondary regions none of which overlies all input fibres, literal support not being required (paragraphs 127 to 140). The claim is novel over D6, whose figures 8a and 8b do not show a single inner fibre, combining figures being excluded (paragraphs 141 to 171), and inventive: neither D6, focused on increasing power, nor D13, D7 to D11 or common general knowledge prompts the skilled person to apply the output fibre of figure 8a to a single inner fibre (paragraphs 172 to 201).

The YLS-AMB lasers literally realise claim 6: two sources suffice, and marginal deviations in diameter or overlap of the fluorine-doped cladding are irrelevant, with no expert evidence needed (paragraphs 202 to 224). For a reason redacted in the published version, the claims other than the injunction and the interim award are limited to acts after 5 December 2021 (paragraphs 226 to 230). The order grants the injunction with penalty payments of EUR 300,000 per device, information, recall, removal and destruction within six weeks, an interim award of EUR 115,000 reflecting the price of the test device, an interim award of costs being refused (paragraphs 237 to 240), and declares liability for damages. It dismisses the counterclaim, orders IPG to bear all costs and sets the overall value at EUR 2,000,000 (paragraphs 241 to 246).

Key points for practice

• A dimensional feature (« equal or greater ») is read with manufacturing tolerances, not with mathematical exactness (paragraphs 95 to 97).
• A functional connection feature (an « input » fibre) turns on technical suitability, not on actual connection (paragraphs 73 and 74).
• Lack of literal support in the application as filed does not in itself amount to added matter where the skilled person derives the claimed teaching from it (paragraphs 134 to 136).
• Practical point: the division does not resolve a dispute on construction where the defendant does not contest that the feature is met, even on the claimant’s narrower reading (paragraph 119), the challenge must therefore target fulfilment itself.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25(a), 31, 33(1)(b) and (3)(a), 54, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 30, 36, 118.5, 119, 150.2, 191, 262A and 263

European Patent Convention

Arts 54, 56, 87, 123, 138

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4(1), Art. 24(4) and Art. 71b(1)

Case law cited

Fujifilm v Kodak, Mannheim Local Division, 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023), Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Expert v Seoul Viosys, Court of Appeal, 2 October 2025, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Hurom v NUC, Mannheim Local Division, 11 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_159/2024 and UPC_CFI_162/2024)

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.