bellissa HAAS v Windhager (CFI, 12 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a decision of 12 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_338/2024 and UPC_CFI_778/2024), the Mannheim Local Division upheld bellissa HAAS’s infringement action against Windhager GmbH based on EP 2 223 589 (bed edging made of interlocking sheet-metal strips) and dismissed the revocation counterclaim. The action against the two managing directors was dismissed. Its headnotes concern products to be assembled: offering or supplying all the components of a patented product, to be assembled on site without any other item, may constitute direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA, as may selling a single part of a product made of identical parts where assembly is indicated or obvious. Windhager was ordered to cease, recall, remove and destroy the products, to provide information and to pay damages. Publication was refused, the defendants bear the costs and the value in dispute was set at EUR 3,000,000.

Facts and procedure

The patent, in force in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg, belongs to the claimant. After an unsuccessful warning letter of 9 November 2022, it sued the Austrian company and its two managing directors, relying on extracts from the defendant’s website dated 5 March 2024 and a test purchase of 20 June 2024 (paragraphs 17 and 18). The first defendant counterclaimed for revocation for lack of novelty and inventive step. The hearing took place on 18 July 2025.

The applicable law

International jurisdiction rests on Art. 31 UPCA and the Brussels Ia Regulation (Arts 4(1) and 7(2)), and the Mannheim division’s competence on Art. 33(1)(a), extended to acts in Luxembourg and Austria absent any objection under Rule 19 (paragraphs 24 to 29). Validity is assessed under Arts 54, 56 and 138(1)(a) EPC, infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA. Acts after 1 June 2023 are governed by the substantive law of the Agreement, acts completed earlier by the applicable national law (paragraph 101).

Question

Do the separate offer and supply of sheet-metal strips intended to be assembled by the buyer directly infringe a claim to the assembled edging, and are the managing directors personally liable?

Decision

The panel first construed several terms of claim 1, notably the end face, read as the short sides of the strip, and the tongue, which need not span its full width (paragraphs 40 to 55). Novelty was upheld over DE 1 871 426 U and US 2006/0150480 A1, DE 299 01 263 U1 having been raised late and in any event not anticipating (paragraphs 58 to 73), no obviousness was shown (paragraphs 74 to 88). At least two edgings assembled from the accused embodiment literally fall within claim 1 (paragraphs 90 to 99), without any need to examine the « in particular » additions (paragraph 100). In Austria, the website offer and the supply of several strips for assembly are direct infringement, since offering and supplying all the components of an infringing product which the buyer merely assembles at the place of use falls within Art. 25(a) (paragraphs 102 to 108). Acts in Germany were sufficiently alleged (paragraph 109) and acts in Luxembourg accepted in view of earlier licensing talks (paragraph 110). By contrast, absent a sufficient allegation of personal involvement, the action against the managing directors was dismissed (paragraphs 111 to 119). The injunction extends to making, importing and keeping the product, and to the sale of a single strip where assembly is indicated or obvious (paragraphs 121 to 124). Recall, removal and destruction were ordered, including for products placed on the market before 1 June 2023 under Art. 10(1) of Directive 2004/48 (paragraph 127), together with information and a declaration of liability in damages (paragraphs 128 and 129), publication was refused (paragraph 130), a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 was set (paragraph 131) and no security was required (paragraph 134). The defendants bear all the costs, the failed claim against the directors carrying no separate weight (paragraph 135).

Key points for practice

• A supplier of a complete kit cannot hide behind assembly by the buyer: direct infringement may be found without resorting to indirect infringement.
• Being a managing director is not enough for personal liability. The claimant must allege concrete involvement in the infringing acts.
• Within one dispute, acts before 1 June 2023 remain subject to national law and later acts to the law of the Agreement.
• Practical point: precise evidence of offers and sales in each State (dated captures, a test purchase) is what establishes the infringing acts in each State.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25(a), 31, 32(1)(e), 33(1) and (3), 63, 64, 67(1), 68(1), 69(1) and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 118.5, 118.8, 125 and 354.3

European Patent Convention

art. 54, 56, 69 and 138(1)(a)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 10(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 7(2) and 26(1)

Case law cited

Fujifilm v Kodak, Mannheim Local Division, 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_359/2023), DISH v Aylo, Mannheim Local Division, 6 June 2025, Hurom v NUC Electronics, Mannheim Local Division, 11 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_159/2024 and UPC_CFI_162/2024), Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024), Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024, Munich Central Division, 16 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_1/2023), Boehringer v Zentiva, Court of Appeal, 13 August 2025, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2024), Düsseldorf Local Division, 31 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_373/2023)

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.