UPC CFI 248/2024 – Brita SE v AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o. et al.

Expert Commentary

Full Decision Text

1 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court announced on 22 August 2025 Regarding EP 2 387 547 B1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES: 1. The purpose statements in a device claim generally define a device in such a way that it must be suitable for the function and purpose specified in the patent claim. 2. If a device claim contains a purpose, the only thing that's usually relevant for the novelty check under Art. 54 EPC is whether the prior art already shows a device that has all the spatial and physical features that the patent requires for the device. This is only different if the device disclosed in the prior art is unsuitable for the intended use of the patent or needs to be modified before it can be used for that purpose. 3. If the patent proprietor defends the patent (in the alternative) on the grounds that the registered version of the patent is invalid, even if only in part, solely in the version of the auxiliary requests, there is no need to examine whether the claims of the patent in the registered version are only partially invalid pursuant to Art. 65(3) EPC. 4. If the patent contains several subordinate claims, a defence of the patent requested in the alternative by means of closed sets of claims means that the patent can only be maintained on the basis of such an auxiliary request in which each of the subordinate claims of the patent is contained in a grantable version. 5. Any amendment to the patent must satisfy the requirements of Art. 84 EPC. It must therefore be examined whether the amendment introduces a lack of clarity. Local Division Munich UPC CFI 248/20242025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 2 6. The lawful acquirer of a product placed on the market by the patent proprietor is, inter alia, entitled to use that product for its intended purpose. In this respect, exhaustion has occurred in accordance with Article 29 EPGÜ. Intended use also includes the normal maintenance and restoration of usability if the functionality or performance of the specific product is impaired or eliminated in whole or in part due to wear and tear, damage or other reasons. However, intended use does not include any measures that result in the reproduction of a product covered by the patent. The exclusive right of manufacture of the patent holder is not exhausted when a copy of the patented product is placed on the market for the first time. 7. If part of a patented product is replaced, the decisive factor in determining whether this constitutes use in accordance with the intended purpose or a new product is whether the replacement preserves the identity of the specific patented product placed on the market or whether it creates a new product that is in accordance with the invention. This is assessed by weighing up the interests of the patent holder in the economic exploitation of the invention, taking into account the unique nature of the patented product, against the interests of the purchaser in the unimpeded use of the specific product in accordance with the invention that has been placed on the market. 8. If the replacement of the part in question can normally be expected during the product's lifetime and if the public or the purchasers therefore legitimately expect to be able to continue using the purchased product or to use it multiple times by means of the replacement part, the use of the patented product placed on the market is generally considered to be permissible. However, the situation is different in exceptional cases where the technical effects of the invention are reflected precisely in the replaced part. 9. If an infringing embodiment that indirectly infringes the patent pursuant to Article 26 EPGÜ can also be used without patent protection, only a limited prohibition is justified, which ensures that, on the one hand, commercial transactions involving the infringing product outside the scope of the property right remain unaffected and, on the other hand, the direct infringing use by the customer is excluded with sufficient certainty. Suitable measures for this purpose are, in principle warning notices and/or contractual cease-and-desist agreements. 10. Art. 64 EPGÜ does not apply to indirect patent infringement pursuant to Art. 26 EPGÜ. Consequently, in particular, no finding of patent infringement can be made.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 3 CLAIMANT (AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT) Brita SE, legally represented by the Executive Board Markus Hankammer, Stefan Rudolf Jonitz and Dr. Rüdiger Kraege, Heinz-Hankammer-Straße 1, 65232 Taunusstein, Germany, represented by: , attorney Niels Christof Julius Schuh, Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB, Kaiserswerther Str. 183, 40474 Düsseldorf, Germany. DEFENDANTS (AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS) 1. AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., represented by the managing directors Jakub Grosman and Alex Rish, Mánesova 881/27, 120 00 Prague, Czech Republic, 2. AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, represented by the managing director Jakub Grosman, Warschauer Platz 11-13, 10245 Berlin, Germany, 3. Gasmarine BV Srl, represented by the Managing Director Maximilian Devotee Lungotorrente Secca 23, 16163 Genoa, Italy, 4. MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée, represented by the managing directors Gad Ayache and Moshé-Dov Ayacche, 19 Rue Séjourné, 94000 Créteil, France, represented by: Attorney Sönke Scheltz, Eisenführ Speiser Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Johannes-Brahms-Platz 1, 20355 Hamburg, Germany. PATENT AT ISSUE European patent EP 2 387 547 B1 PANEL/CHAMBER Panel 2 of the Munich local division PARTICIPATING JUDGES The decision was issued with the participation of Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß (rapporteur), legally qualified judge Dr. Daniel Voß, legally qualified judge Mojca Mlakar and technically qualified judge Dr. Marc van der Burg. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS German SUBJECT Infringement action and counterclaim for annulment2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 4 ORAL HEARING 18 JULY 2025 FACTS 1 The claimant is the registered proprietor of European patent EP 2 387 547 (hereinafter: patent at issue, Annex MB 6), which was filed on 14 January 2010. The patent at issue, whose language of the proceedings is German, claims priority from DE 10 2009 0002 31 of 14 January 2009. It emerged from the European regional phase of international patent application PCT/EP2010/050385, published under number WO 2010/081845 (Annex ES 10). The grant of the patent at issue was published on 25 July 2012. 2 On 27 May 2023, the claimant invoked the exception under Art. 83(3) EPC for the patent at issue. It withdrew this invocation on 15 April 2024. 3 The patent at issue is in force in Germany, Austria, France and Italy (Annexes MB 7, MB 8). An preliminary objection to its grant was filed by a third party with the European Patent Office (hereinafter: EPO). According to the preliminary opinion of the Opposition Division contained in the notice of summons dated 1 October 2014 (Exhibit MBN 1), the preliminary objection was withdrawn. 4 The patent at issue relates to a valve actuating device for a valve, a liquid container for a liquid treatment device, and a liquid treatment device. Claims 1 to 5, 12 and 13 of the patent at issue read as follows: 1. Valve actuating device (60) of a valve (20) comprising a movable shut-off body (24) and a valve seat (23), wherein the shut-off body (24) is trapped in a valve chamber (36) and is movable in the valve chamber (36) in a horizontal and vertical direction, is located in the outlet opening (18) of a liquid container (5) of a liquid treatment device (1) and, when the liquid container is installed in the liquid treatment device (1), is located in the outlet opening (18) of the liquid container (5) and is in the closed position, wherein the valve actuating device (60) is arranged on the valve (20) located in the closed position and is movable in the direction of the outlet opening (18) of the liquid container (5) when the valve (20) (5) installed in the liquid treatment device (1) is in the closed position, wherein the valve actuating device (60) is designed to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component when attached to the valve (20) in the closed position. 2. Device according to claim 1, characterised in that the valve actuating device (60) has at least one actuating element. 3. Device according to claim 2, characterised in that the actuating element (61) is pluggable. 4. Liquid container (5) of a liquid treatment device (1), wherein the liquid container (5) has an outlet opening (18) and a valve (20) arranged in the outlet opening (18), characterised in that the valve (20) comprises a movable shut-off body (24) and a valve seat (23), wherein the shut-off body (24) is trapped in a valve chamber (36) and in the2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 5 Valve chamber (36) is movable in the horizontal and vertical directions, that the valve (20) is in the closed position when the fluid container is installed in the fluid treatment device (1) (5) and that a valve actuating device (60) is provided which, when attached to the valve (20) in the closed position, is designed to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component. 5. Liquid container according to claim 4, characterised in that the shut-off body (24) has an element (29) protruding from the valve chamber (36). 12. Liquid treatment device (1) with a liquid treatment cartridge (40) and with a liquid container (5) according to one of claims 4 to 11. 13. Liquid treatment device according to claim 12, characterised in that the valve actuating device (60) is arranged on the liquid treatment cartridge (40) is arranged. 5 With regard to the wording of the remaining (sub)claims, reference is made to the contested patent specification. 6 Figures 1 and 4, shown below, explain the technical teaching of the patent at issue using preferred embodiments. Figure 1 is a vertical section through a liquid treatment device. Figure 4 shows an embodiment of a valve actuating device in the order on a liquid treatment cartridge which is completely inserted into the liquid container.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 6 7 The claimant is part of the BRITA Group, a leading German manufacturer of drinking water filters with subsidiaries or partner companies in 69 countries. Among other things, the claimant sells water filter systems consisting of a water carafe and a filter cartridge. 8 One of the filter systems sold by the Claimant is the "Style" system, which includes a MAXTRA PRO filter cartridge in addition to the water carafe (Exhibit ES 3). 9 The water carafe of the "Style" system, like every water carafe sold by the Claimant since 2020, features the "PerfectFit" valve system. This valve system, which is mounted in the water carafe2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 7 has a shut-off element that can be moved horizontally and vertically and is located in a valve chamber. Below the shut-off element is a valve seat with closable (water) outlet openings. Both the valve seat and the bead surrounding the shut-off element are components of the valve chamber, which is integrated into the funnel base. When the shut-off body is not moved, the valve is in the closed position so that no water can flow through. For illustrative purposes, photographs submitted by the Claimant and a schematic drawing of the shut-off body are shown below. 10 The underside of the filter cartridge of the MAXTRA PRO system has a sleeve with two guide elements arranged at an angle on its inner wall. When the filter cartridge is inserted into the water carafe, the sleeve surrounds the shut-off body of the "PerfectFit" system to cause the guide elements to engage with corresponding grooves in the shut- off body. This engagement forces the shut-off body to rotate, causing the shut-off body of the "PerfectFit" system to slide over the sloping surfaces attached to the bottom of the valve (highlighted in green in the schematic drawing of the shut-off body shown above) and lifted from the valve seat. To illustrate the design of the MAXTRA PRO filter cartridge, the photograph submitted by the Claimant is shown below.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 8 11 Like all filter cartridges, the MAXTRA PRO filter cartridge must be replaced during the service life of the filter system. All filter cartridges sold by the Claimant are technically identical in terms of the features relevant to the present case. 12 The first defendant is the European parent company of the Aquashield Group. Among other things, it organises the distribution of Philips brand filter cartridges with the designations AWP210, AWP211, AWP212, AWP213 and AWP230 (Softening+) (hereinafter: contested embodiment). The second defendant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the first defendant with its registered office in Germany (Exhibit MB 3). It is responsible for the distribution of the contested embodiment in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The third defendant is a distribution company with its registered office in Italy (Exhibit MB 4) and distributes the contested embodiment in Italy. The fourth defendant is based in France (Exhibit MB 5), where it also distributes the contested embodiment. It also offers it on its website (Exhibit MB 13). 13 The contested embodiment is a (water) filter cartridge. On its underside there is a partially ring-shaped, wedge-shaped projection.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 9 14 The contested embodiment can be used in the water carafes of the Claimant. When inserted into a water carafe with the 'PerfectFit' valve system, the partially ring-shaped, wedge-shaped projection on the underside of the contested embodiment exerts a horizontal force component on the valve in such a way that the valve's shut-off body is tilted and water can flow through, as shown in a video produced by the Claimant (Exhibit MB 14). Screenshots from the video are shown below.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 10 15 The mode of operation of the partially ring-shaped, wedge-shaped projection of the contested embodiment can be seen in another video produced by the Claimant showing the operation (Exhibit MB 15). Screenshots from this video are shown below for illustrative purposes.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 11 16 The Claimant had two test purchases made in Germany and one each in Italy and France via online platforms. As the photographs below show, the packaging of the examples of the contested design obtained in this way indicates that the contested design is compatible with the Claimant's water carafes.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 12 17 The contested design is mainly sold on online platforms or via online shops and drugstores. It costs approximately €5 per item. 18 The claimant considers the offer and sale of the contested embodiment in Germany, Austria, France and Italy to be a direct infringement of claim 1 of the patent at issue and an indirect infringement of claims 12 and 13 (ACT 29522/2024 UPC CFI 248/2024). The defendants have jointly filed a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of the patent at issue (CC 53726/2024 UPC CFI 564/2024). The claimant has filed alternative applications for amendment of the patent (App 3161/2025).2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 13 APPLICATIONS OF THE PARTIES Action 19 After initially announcing that it would file applications in accordance with pages 2 to 15 of the statement of claim dated 22 May 2024, the claimant now requests the following: A. I. 1. The defendants are ordered to refrain from, in the territories of Austria (AT), Germany (DE), France (FR) and Italy (IT), a valve actuating device (60) of a valve (20) comprising a movable shut-off body (24) and a valve seat (23), wherein the shut-off body (24) is captured in a valve chamber (36) and is movable in the valve chamber (36) in a horizontal and vertical direction, which is located in the outlet opening (18) of a liquid container (5) of a fluid treatment device (1) and is in the closed position when the fluid container (5) is installed in the fluid treatment device (1), wherein the valve actuating device (60) is designed, when attached to the valve (20) in the closed position, to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component, (direct infringement of claim 1 of EP 2 387 547 B1) in particular if the valve actuating device (60) has at least one actuating element (61), (direct infringement of claim 2 of EP 2 387 547 B1) to offer, place on the market, use or import or possess for the aforementioned purposes. 2. to grant the application under A.I.1, with the proviso that the wording of claim 1 reproduced therein is drafted in accordance with the auxiliary application deemed legally valid by the Board. II. The defendants are ordered to destroy, at their own expense, the products referred to in Section A. I. 1. insofar as they are in their direct or indirect possession or ownership, as well as the materials and equipment used to create or manufacture these products, to a bailiff to be appointed by the Claimant for the purpose of destruction at their expense, i.e. the defendant's expense;2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 14 in the alternative to 1.: to remove the infringing characteristics of the products at their expense. 2. The products referred to in Section A I, which have been placed on the market since 23 May 2019, must be returned to commercial customers in writing, stating the patent infringement status of the product as determined by the court (judgment of the UPC Agreement of ...) and with a binding undertaking to reimburse any payments made and to bear the necessary packaging and transport costs as well as the customs and storage costs associated with the return and to take back the products. III. The defendants are ordered to provide the claimant with an orderly list in electronic form – insofar as the relevant data are available with the defendants – detailing the extent to which the defendants have committed the acts referred to in section I since 23 May 2019, specifying: 1. the individual deliveries, broken down by delivery quantities, times, prices and type designations, as well as the names and addresses of the recipients, 2. the individual offers, broken down by offer quantities, times, prices and type designations, as well as the names and addresses of the commercial recipients of the offers, 3. the advertising carried out, broken down by advertising media, circulation figures, distribution period and distribution area, and, in the case of Internet advertising, the Internet addresses, the placement periods and the number of hits, 4. the production costs broken down by individual cost factors and the profit achieved, whereby the list containing the accounting data must be submitted in an electronic form that can be evaluated by means of EDP, The defendant reserve the right to disclose the names and addresses of non- commercial customers and recipients of offers to a certified auditor designated by the claimant, who is bound to maintain confidentiality and is based in the Federal Republic of Germany, instead of to the claimant, provided that the defendants bear the costs and authorise and oblige the auditor to inform the claimant, upon specific request, whether a particular purchaser or recipient of the offer is included in the list. IV. The defendants are ordered 1. to provide the claimant, in a list structured by calendar month and by patent- infringing product, starting on 23 May 2019, with information on the products mentioned in A.I., namely2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 15 a) the origin and distribution channels of the products; b) the quantities delivered, received or ordered and the prices paid for the products; c) the identity of all third parties involved in the manufacture or distribution of the products; 2. the claimant, in a list structured by calendar month and by patent-infringing product, starting on 23 May 2019, to provide information on the products referred to in A.II. and to disclose its books to the Claimant to prove the information provided in accordance with A.III.1. by providing the Claimant with the information in electronic form that can be evaluated using a computer for each month of a calendar year starting on 23 May 2019 and for each patent- infringing product 3. to disclose to the claimant its books to prove the information provided in accordance with A.IV.1, by providing, for each month of a calendar year from 23 May 2019 and for each patent-infringing product, in electronic form that can be evaluated using a computer, invoices – or, if these are not available, delivery notes – for the individual deliveries, broken down by the names and addresses of the commercial recipients of the sales offers for all products sold or otherwise disposed of . V. The defendants are obliged to compensate the claimant for all damages incurred by it as a result of the actions specified in Section A. I. from 23 May 2019 onwards. VI. European patent EP 2 387 547 has been infringed by the defendants through the acts referred to in section A.I. VII. In the event of any infringement of the order pursuant to sections A. I. to A. IV., the defendant in breach shall pay a penalty payment to the court of up to EUR 250,000. B. I. 1. The defendants are ordered to refrain from supplying customers in the territories of Austria (AT), Germany (DE), France (FR) and Italy (IT) with2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 16 liquid treatment cartridges with a valve actuating device which is arranged in the order on the liquid treatment cartridge (40) and which, when attached to a valve (20) in the closed position, is designed to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component if they are suitable for use in one liquid treatment device (1) with the liquid treatment cartridge (40) and with a liquid container (5), wherein the liquid container (5) has an outlet opening (18) and a valve (20) arranged in the outlet opening (18), wherein the valve (20) comprises a movable shut-off body (24) and a valve seat (23), wherein the shut-off body (24) is trapped in a valve chamber (36) and is movable in the valve chamber (36) in a horizontal and vertical direction, wherein the valve actuating device, when attached to the valve (20) in the closed position, is designed to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component, the valve (20) being in the closed position when the fluid container (5) is installed in the fluid treatment device (1), without − in the case of offers to commercial customers, expressly and clearly stating in the offer that these liquid treatment cartridges may not be used in a liquid treatment device with the above-mentioned features without the consent of the Claimant as the owner of EP 2 387 547 B1; − in the case of delivery to commercial customers, subject to a contractual penalty of EUR 50,000.00 payable to the Claimant for each case of infringement, at least EUR 1,000 per item, to impose a written obligation not to use these liquid treatment cartridges without the consent of the Claimant for liquid treatment devices equipped with the above-mentioned features; − that it must be expressly and clearly stated that the liquid treatment cartridges are not suitable for use in liquid containers of the "BRITA" brand with "PerfectFit" and that liquid treatment cartridges with "PerfectFit" cannot replace liquid treatment cartridges of the "BRITA" brand; − and, in the alternative, for the last indent, that it must also be expressly and clearly stated that the liquid treatment cartridges are not suitable for use in liquid containers of the "BRITA" brand with "PerfectFit" that have been sold since March 2020 and cannot replace liquid treatment cartridges of the brand "BRITA" with "PerfectFit" cannot be replaced; − as a last resort for the last indent, that any references – whether pictorial, linguistic or otherwise2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 17 on packaging or on the Internet, in the form of phrases such as "Maxtra+", "Brita Maxtra+", "Maxtra+ compatible", "Brita Maxtra+ compatible" or "Brita compatible" or "PerfectFit", are to be omitted; (indirect infringement of claims 12 and 13 of EP 2 387 547 B1) in particular if the shut-off body (24) has an element protruding from the valve chamber (36) (29) protruding from the valve chamber (36). (indirect infringement of claim 5 of EP 2 387 547 B1) 2. to grant the application under point B.I.1, with the proviso that the wording of the collateral claim relating to a liquid treatment device and its first dependent claim be drafted in accordance with the auxiliary application deemed valid by the Board. II. The defendants are ordered to provide the claimant, in an orderly list – insofar as the relevant data is available to the defendants – in electronic form, with an account of the extent to which the defendants have committed the acts referred to in point I since 23 May 2019, specifying: 1. the individual deliveries, broken down by delivery quantities, times, prices and type designations, as well as the names and addresses of the recipients, 2. the individual offers, broken down by offer quantities, times, prices and type designations, as well as the names and addresses of the commercial recipients of the offers, 3. the advertising carried out, broken down by advertising media, circulation figures, distribution period and distribution area, and, in the case of Internet advertising, the Internet addresses, the placement periods and the number of hits, 4. the production costs broken down by individual cost factors and the profit achieved, whereby the list containing the accounting data must be submitted in an electronic form that can be evaluated by means of EDP, The defendant reserve the right to disclose the names and addresses of non- commercial customers and recipients of offers to a certified auditor designated by the claimant, who is bound to maintain confidentiality and is based in the Federal Republic of Germany, instead of to the claimant, provided that the defendants bear the costs and authorise and oblige the auditor to inform the claimant, upon specific request, whether a particular purchaser or recipient of the offer is included in the list.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 18 III. The defendants are ordered 1. to provide the Claimant, in a list structured by calendar month and by patent- infringing products, starting on 23 May 2019, Provide information on the products listed under B.I., namely a) the origin and distribution channels of the products; b) the quantities delivered, received or ordered and the prices paid for the products; c) the identity of all third parties involved in the manufacture or distribution of the products; 2. to disclose to the claimant its books in support of the information provided under B.III.1, by making them available in electronic form, in a format that can be analysed using a computer, for each month of a calendar year from 23 May 2019 and for each product infringing the patent invoices – or, if these are not available, delivery notes – for each delivery, broken down by the names and addresses of the commercial recipients of the offers for sale for all products sold or otherwise disposed of . IV. The defendants are obliged to compensate the Claimant for all damages incurred by it as a result of the actions referred to in section B. I. from 23 May 2019 onwards and which will still be incurred. V. European patent EP 2 387 547 has been indirectly infringed by the defendant through the actions specified in section B.I. VI. In the event of any breach of the order pursuant to Sections B. I. to B.III., the defendant in breach shall pay a penalty to the court of up to EUR 250,000. C. (In the alternative, in the event that claim A is dismissed): I. 1. The defendant is ordered to refrain from marketing in the territories of Austria (AT), Germany (DE), France (FR) and Italy (IT)2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 19 valve actuating devices which, when attached to a valve (20) in the closed position, are designed to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component if they are suitable as valve actuating devices (60) for a valve (20) which comprises a movable shut-off body (24) and a valve seat (23), wherein the shut-off body (24) is trapped in a valve chamber (36) and is movable in the valve chamber (36) in a horizontal and vertical direction, which is located in the outlet opening (18) of a liquid container (5) of a liquid treatment device (1), and which is in the closed position when the liquid container (5) is installed in the liquid treatment device (1), wherein the valve actuating device (60) is designed, when attached to the valve (20) in the closed position, to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component; without − in the case of offering to commercial customers, expressly and conspicuously indicating in the offer that these liquid treatment cartridges may not be used in a liquid treatment device with the above- mentioned features without the consent of the Claimant as the owner of EP 2 387 547 B1; − in the event of delivery to commercial customers, subject to a contractual penalty payable to the Claimant of EUR 50,000.00 for each case of infringement, but at least EUR 1,000 per item, the written obligation to not to use these liquid treatment cartridges without the Claimant's consent for liquid treatment devices equipped with the features described above; − that, in addition, it must be expressly and clearly stated that the liquid treatment cartridges are not suitable for use in liquid containers of the "BRITA" brand with "PerfectFit" and liquid treatment cartridges of the brand "BRITA" cannot replace "PerfectFit"; − and, in the alternative, for the last indent, that it must be expressly and clearly stated that the liquid treatment cartridges are not suitable for use in liquid containers of the "BRITA" brand with "PerfectFit" that have been sold since March 2020 and cannot replace liquid treatment cartridges of the "BRITA" brand with "PerfectFit"; − As a last resort for the final indent, that any references – whether pictorial, linguistic or otherwise – to2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 20 packaging or on the Internet, in the form of phrases such as "Maxtra+", "Brita Maxtra+", "Maxtra+ compatible", "Brita Maxtra+ compatible" or "Brita compatible" or "PerfectFit" must be omitted; (indirect infringement of claim 1 of EP 2 387 547 B1) in particular if the valve actuating device (60) has at least one actuating element (61). (indirect infringement of claim 2 of EP 2 387 547 B1) 2. the application under point C.I.1 is granted, with the proviso that the wording of claim 1 reproduced therein is drafted in accordance with the auxiliary application considered by the Board to be legally valid. II. The defendants are ordered to provide the claimant with an orderly list – in electronic form if the relevant data are available with the defendants – detailing the extent to which the defendants have committed the acts described in section I since 23 May 2019, specifying: 1. the individual deliveries, broken down by delivery quantities, times, prices and type designations, as well as the names and addresses of the recipients, 2. the individual offers, broken down by offer quantities, times, prices and type designations, as well as the names and addresses of the commercial recipients of the offers, 3. the advertising carried out, broken down by advertising media, circulation figures, distribution period and distribution area, and, in the case of Internet advertising, the Internet addresses, the placement periods and the number of hits, 4. the production costs broken down by individual cost factors and the profit achieved, whereby the list containing the accounting data must be submitted in an electronic form that can be evaluated by means of EDP, The defendant reserve the right to disclose the names and addresses of non- commercial customers and recipients of offers to a certified auditor designated by the claimant, who is bound to maintain confidentiality and is based in the Federal Republic of Germany, instead of to the claimant, provided that the defendants bear the costs and authorise and oblige the auditor to inform the claimant, upon specific request, whether a particular purchaser or recipient of the offer is included in the list. III. The defendants are ordered2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 21 1. to provide the claimant, in a list structured by calendar month and by patent- infringing products, starting on 23 May 2019, information on the products listed under C.I., namely a) the origin and distribution channels of the products; b) the quantities delivered, received or ordered and the prices paid for the products; c) the identity of all third parties involved in the manufacture or distribution of the products; 2. to disclose to the claimant its books in order to verify the information provided in accordance with C.III.1, by making them available in electronic form, which can be evaluated using a computer, for each month of a calendar year from 23 May 2019 and for each product infringing the patent; invoices – or, if these are not available, delivery notes – for individual deliveries, broken down by the names and addresses of the commercial recipients of the offers for sale for all products sold or otherwise disposed of . IV. The defendants are obliged to compensate the claimant for all damages incurred by it as a result of the actions referred to in section C. I. from 23 May 2019 onwards and which will still be incurred. V. European patent EP 2 387 547 has been indirectly infringed by the defendant through the actions specified in section C.I. VI. In the event of any breach of the order pursuant to Sections C. I. to C.III., the defendant in breach shall pay a penalty to the court of up to EUR 250,000. 20 The defendants request that I. that the action be dismissed; II. the Claimant to bear the costs of the legal dispute, including the costs of the counterclaim; III. declare the judgment enforceable with regard to the costs, either directly or, in the alternative, against security (deposit or bank guarantee from a European bank).2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 22 Counterclaim 21 After initially requesting that the patent at issue be declared invalid to the extent of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5, as well as claims 12 and 13 insofar as they refer back to claim 4 or claim 5, the defendants now request that I. declare the patent at issue invalid in the scope of claims 1 to 7 and claims 12 and 13, insofar as these refer back to claims 4 to 7, and II. order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings. 22 The claimant requests that I. that the counterclaim for annulment be dismissed, II. order the plaintiffs to pay the costs of the proceedings. Application for amendment of the patent 23 After initially requesting, in the alternative, that the counterclaim for annulment be dismissed insofar as the patent at issue is defended with the auxiliary requests 1 to 15 (in that order) submitted as annexes, the claimant now requests in the alternative, that the counterclaim for annulment be dismissed insofar as the patent at issue is defended by the auxiliary requests 1 to 16 (in that order) submitted as annexes to the document of 28 February 2025, including the auxiliary requests 4A, 6A, 9A, 11A (in the order of the auxiliary requests submitted immediately after the auxiliary request with the corresponding number), each of which constitutes a closed set of claims. 24 The defendants oppose the application to amend the patent. MAIN POINTS OF DISPUTE AND SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS A. Scope of protection Subject matter of claim 1 25 The claimant is of the opinion that claim 1 protects only a valve actuating device, that the mention of the valve in the claim is merely an indication of its purpose, and that it is therefore sufficient for the valve actuating device according to the claim to be objectively suitable for interacting with a valve as characterised in claim 1. The patent at issue does not aim to protect actuating devices for all possible valves.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 23 but only such a valve actuating device corresponding to the specific application and purpose specified in claim 1. Even if the valve actuating device protected by the patent is thus characterised and limited by the fact that it must be suitable for interacting with specific valves, the valve characterised in claim 1 is not part of the protected subject matter of the patent. Claim 1 is a so-called apparent combination claim. Those features of the claim which relate to the valve (which lies outside the subject matter of protection) are only legally relevant in the assessment of infringement insofar as their nature as required by the patent at issue or the technical effects resulting from their interaction with the protected object in accordance with the invention allow conclusions to be drawn about the necessary design of the subject matter of the patent. 26 The defendant is of the opinion that claim 1 protects an overall device consisting of a valve and associated actuating device. This already follows from the clear wording of the claim, which refers to a "valve actuating device (60) of a valve (20)". When specifying a purpose, one would expect a formulation such as "valve actuating device (suitable) for a valve", "valve actuating device for actuating a valve" or similar. The systematic structure of the patent claim also contradicts the claimant's interpretation. According to the claimant's interpretation, the features describing the valve and its structure would be superfluous. Claim 1, however, mainly deals with the design of the valve and not with the valve actuating device. A further check also supports the Claimant's interpretation: if this interpretation were followed, any device capable of applying a horizontal force component would fall under the claim. The alleged indication of purpose does not imply any factual limitation; the valve does not even have to exist in reality. In that case, the valve actuating device could be practically anything, including a stick or a finger. Accordingly, the patent at issue also states that the valve actuating device could have any shape, be made of any material and be designed as an independent component or as part of another component. In other words, the Claimant's alleged invention would then consist of having invented any object whatsoever. It is obvious that such an "invention" is not new and inventive. For this reason, too, the Claimant's interpretation cannot be correct. 27 Furthermore, according to the defendant further, only their interpretation is consistent with the principle that the teaching of the patent seeks to distinguish itself from the prior art described therein. In addition, the history of the grant supports their view. In addition, the Claimant had argued exactly the opposite in the grant proceedings, and the patent had only been upheld in the opposition proceedings because all parties involved had assumed that claim 1 of the patent at issue also covered the valve. Finally, the Claimant also took this view in the counterclaim.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 24 Plug-in within the meaning of subclaim 3 28 In the claimant's view, the skilled person understands 'insertable' within the meaning of subclaim 3 of the patent at issue to mean, inter alia, the passing or pushing of an element to be inserted through an opening. 29 The defendant argues that the skilled person understands 'pluggable' to mean that the actuating element must be designed in such a way that it can be plugged onto the shut- off body. Actuating element in the form of a plate 30 Insofar as the patent at issue describes the actuating element of a valve actuating device as a plate in a preferred embodiment, the claimant considers this to mean a component whose thickness is less than the dimensions in the other directions. 31 In the defendant's view, this is only half the truth, because the qualification of a plate requires not only that it be flat, but also that it be of uniform thickness throughout. B. Infringement action Realisation of claim 1 of the patent at issue 32 In the Claimant's view, the contested embodiment directly and literally implements claims 1 and 2 of the patent at issue. In the event that the Board considers that claim 1 protects an overall device comprising a valve actuating device and a valve, the Claimant asserts, in the alternative, an indirect infringement of claims 1 and 2. 33 With regard to the auxiliary requests made in the application for amendment of the patent, the Claimant is of the opinion that claim 1 is also realised literally in the version according to auxiliary requests 1 to 12. 34 In the defendant's view, there is no direct infringement of claim 1 on the basis of their understanding of the scope of protection, because the contested embodiment does not realise a large part of the features of claim 1. The contested embodiment (undisputedly) only has a valve actuating device, but not the valve that is also required. 35 In the auxiliary requests 1 to 13, the defendant argued that features had been included in the respective claim 1 which were not realised by the contested embodiment. In particular, the contested embodiment did not have an actuating element which was pluggable within the meaning of the patent at issue. The actuating element of the contested embodiment does not have a cavity and therefore cannot be plugged onto a shut-off body of the valve. A plate is also missing. The partially ring-shaped projection of the contested embodiment2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 25 is wedge-shaped and runs towards the free tip, so that the thickness in this area is significantly less than in the lower area facing the bottom wall. 36 An indirect infringement of claims 1 and 2 is ruled out due to exhaustion (see below). Act of use "use" 37 The claimant is of the opinion that, in the case of commercial enterprises, any act of offering also creates a risk of the product being placed on the market, used, possessed or imported. With regard to the alleged infringement of use, there is therefore at least a risk of first-time infringement. 38 The defendant point out that they are distribution companies that distribute goods packaged ready for sale in their respective countries. It is therefore completely unfounded and incorrect to claim that they use the items within the meaning of patent law. They also never intended to use the contested embodiment themselves. Realisation of claim combination 12 and 13 of the patent at issue 39 The claimant is of the opinion that the contested embodiment indirectly infringes the combination of claims 12 and 13 within the meaning of Article 26 EPGÜ. In addition, claim 5 is also indirectly infringed. With regard to the auxiliary requests made in the application for amendment of the patent, the Claimant is of the opinion that the features of the combination of claims 12 and 13 are also realised in the form of the respective auxiliary requests. 40 The defendant dispute that the features of the combination of claims 12 and 13 are realised in the version of the auxiliary requests. These claims refer back to claim 2/3, formerly claim 4. The claimant has included in this claim some features which are not realised. Objection of exhaustion 41 The defendant raises the objection of exhaustion under Article 29 EPGÜ. Since the claimant markets filter systems consisting of water carafes and filter cartridges and the filter cartridges are undisputedly wear parts that are normally expected to be replaced during the service life of the water carafe, the replacement of the claimant's filter cartridges with the contested embodiment is merely a normal and permissible maintenance measure for the filter system sold by the claimant. The claimant's patent rights are therefore exhausted in this respect. 42 Nor was there an exceptional situation in which it could be assumed that the delivery of a wear part (still) constituted the manufacture of a new patented product. The replaced part, the filter cartridge, did not reflect the technical effects of the invention, which is why the replacement of this part did not2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 26 According to claim 1, the technical teaching of the patent at issue is embodied solely in the valve in the outlet opening of a liquid container of a liquid treatment device, which is specified in the claim. The valve actuating device is merely an object for actuating this valve. The claim did not impose any spatial or physical requirements on the valve actuating device beyond its ability to exert a horizontal force component on the valve. The valve actuating device therefore neither embodies an essential element of the inventive concept, since this part is not responsible for the advantages of the patent, nor does the valve actuating device make a decisive contribution to the success of the invention. Furthermore, the replacement part did not offer the advantages of the solution according to the invention, since the invention did not influence the functionality or service life of the replacement part. 43 In the defendant's view, this view corresponds to the legal situation in Germany, Italy, Austria and France. This is apparent, inter alia, from the brief expert opinions it commissioned for Italy (Exhibit ES 5), Austria (Exhibit ES 6) and France (Exhibit ES 7). 44 Claims 12 and 13 protect a liquid treatment device. This consists of a liquid treatment cartridge and a liquid container. Claim 13 differs from claims 1 and 2 solely in that it now specifies that the valve actuating device is located on the liquid treatment cartridge. However, this did not alter the fact that the invention still did not lie in the replacement part (the liquid treatment cartridge), but solely in the valve of the liquid container. The above statements on the legal situation regarding exhaustion in the event of replacement of wear parts in Germany, Italy, Austria and France would therefore apply mutatis mutandis to the combination of claims 12 and 13. 45 Exhaustion had also occurred with regard to each of the auxiliary requests submitted by the Claimant. The newly added features did not make any additional contribution to the invention. Apart from that, it had to be taken into account that the Claimant had already placed its water filter jugs, including the corresponding cartridges, on the market. In doing so, it had granted consent to the use of these water filter systems in relation to claims 1 and 12/13 of the patent at issue as granted at the time. It could not subsequently restrict this licence by filing corresponding auxiliary requests that limited the patent claim. However, even if one were to assume that a subsequent restriction of the patent claim could also have an effect on previously granted licences to use (which it cannot), the replacement of the filter cartridges would not constitute an indirect patent infringement. This is because even if this were to be regarded as a new manufacture, the subjective component necessary for indirect patent infringement would be lacking. When the defendant put their cartridges on the market, they simply did not know (and could not have known) that the claimant would later limit itself to a claim that (allegedly) did not cover the claimant's water filter systems. However, these legal considerations are not decisive in the present case, because the Claimant's filter cartridges continue to make use of claim 1 in the version of auxiliary requests 3 to 12 and 16.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 27 46 In the claimant's view, the objection of exhaustion does not apply for various reasons. With regard to claim group A, the objection is already unsuccessful because direct enforcement of the claim is possible in this respect. 47 With regard to the indirect patent infringements according to claim groups B and C, exhaustion is also ruled out because the contested embodiment results in the production of a new product according to the invention. The technical effects of the inventions are reflected precisely in the use of the contested embodiment. The core idea of the invention of the patent at issue is the interaction between the valve actuating device, which applies a horizontal force component, and the valve that can be activated by this. Against this background, the advantage of the invention is therefore realised in part by the "PerfectFit" of the water carafes and in part by the actuating devices on the contested embodiment. 48 The legal opinions submitted by the defendants on the exhaustion defence under Austrian, Italian and French law did not lead to a different assessment with regard to these contracting states. The opinion on the legal situation in Austria submitted as Annex ES 6 even concedes that the exhaustion defence is not enforceable. The opinions on the legal situation in Italy and France commissioned by the Claimant (Annexes MB 18, MB 19) conclude that the exhaustion defence does not apply in the present case under the respective national law. 49 In the claimant's view, the exhaustion objection is equally ineffective with regard to claim 1 of the patent at issue according to auxiliary requests 1 to 2. If claim 1 in the version of auxiliary requests 3 to 12 were taken as the basis for the exhaustion test, the exhaustion objection would fail from the outset. This is because the filter cartridges offered and distributed by the Claimant did not themselves make use of claim 1 in the version of auxiliary requests 3 to 12. 50 Nor is there any exhaustion with regard to auxiliary requests 1 to 15 concerning the combination of claims 12 and 13. The claimant notes in particular that, when asserting a combination of claims, what is decisive is the technical effect of the combination of claims asserted. 51 Finally, the exhaustion objection also fails with regard to claim 1 of auxiliary request 16. The filter cartridge offered and delivered by it does not embody the features contained therein. When the filter cartridge interacts with the water funnel, the shut-off body does not tip over. Claims and legal consequences Injunction A. I. 2 (direct infringement of claim 1 according to the auxiliary requests) 52 The defendants complain that the claimant submitted auxiliary requests for the first time in its Reply and requested that the injunction be granted "with the proviso that the wording of claim 1 reproduced therein be drafted in accordance with the auxiliary request deemed legally valid by the Chamber".2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 28 considered legally valid." Claim 1 of the auxiliary request 1 corresponds to subclaim 3 of the granted version. These features are also contained in the auxiliary requests 2 to 12 in identical wording. In other words, the Claimant is now (also) asserting an infringement of subclaim 3 for the first time, under the guise of an auxiliary request. Such a course of action is inadmissible because the claimant could and should have asserted claim 3 in the statement of claim. The claimant does not even attempt to explain why the amendment to the claim now made could be considered admissible by way of exception under Rule 263 of the RoP and, a fortiori, does not make a corresponding application. Nor would such an application be justifiable. Injunction claims B I. 1 and C I. 1 (indirect patent infringement) 53 The claimant seeks an injunction for indirect patent infringement with a warning notice and a contractual penalty. 54 In the claimant's view, the contested embodiment is clearly intended for use with the claimant's water carafes. This is unambiguously apparent from the defendant's product packaging, where a corresponding instruction for use has been affixed to the front of the packaging in a colour and size that cannot be overlooked. In fact, the defendant's intention with this approach was to ensure that the contested embodiment was used almost exclusively for the Claimant's systems. The alleged compatibility of the contested embodiment with other water carafes, in particular those from Philips, is not advertised on the front of the packaging and can only be found in the small print. 55 In view of the intended exclusive use of the contested embodiment with the Claimant's water carafes, the Claimant considers that an absolute prohibition is appropriate. In its view, the fact that only the affixing of a warning notice is requested in the present case already constitutes a concession. However, since the use of the contested embodiment is clearly aimed at the patented use with the Claimant's water carafes, this circumstance must be taken into account with regard to the contractual penalty to be demanded from the customers, according to the Claimant. Due to the outstanding reputation and popularity of the Claimant's products, patent infringement would be almost inevitable if the contested embodiments were to be resold. Against this background, the contractual penalty claimed is appropriate in terms of amount and is also absolutely necessary to prevent further patent infringements. 56 The first defendant sells exclusively to commercial customers, such as the second defendant. It should be noted that the managing director of the first defendant and 2) would naturally ignore its own warning notice and that therefore at least a contractual penalty was necessary. Defendants 2) to 4) distributed the contested embodiment almost entirely to commercial customers. The contested embodiment was not aimed at end consumers. It was aimed at customers who owned a compatible water carafe such as the water carafe of the Claimant. This naturally included commercial customers such as companies in significant numbers.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 29 such as companies. It is obvious that a single company has a greater need than an individual private end user or a household. 57 The defendants argue that the contested embodiment is mainly used without a patent. The filter cartridges are primarily designed for the defendants' water carafes, which are sold under the same brand name as the filter cartridges (Philips). This is already evident from the fact that the filter jugs of the Philips brand also offered by the defendants are always offered and sold as a bundle with several copies of the contested embodiment. The public therefore does not need to be informed that compatibility exists in this respect, as it is aware of this as soon as it purchases a Philips water filter jug. Contrary to the claimant's suggestion, there is therefore no need for a notice on the front of the packaging of the contested design, as the customer is aware of the compatibility. In addition, both the water filter jugs and the contested design are sold in the same design and under the same brand and are often displayed directly next to each other on the shelf. This alone demonstrates compatibility. Contrary to the Claimant's assertion, compatibility is also explicitly stated on the packaging of the contested design. The fact that customers are aware of compatibility is also evident on the Amazon.de website. 58 Furthermore, the filter cartridges also fit into a wide range of other water carafes with oval filter inserts available on the market, as indicated on the packaging of the contested design. Customers who purchase the contested embodiment would therefore also use them, for example, in water filter jugs from BWT, Klin-Tec, PearlCo, Aquaphor, Weesper, Aqua Select, Agiostar, Costway and Levoit. Combining the contested design with all these filter jugs did not infringe the patent at issue, as these filter jugs did not have a valve. In addition, it should be noted that the claimant had only switched to the "PerfectFit" system. Prior to this, the claimant had already been selling water jugs without valves for many years, and these were still in widespread use by customers. A combination of the contested embodiment with these jugs would also not constitute an infringement of the patent at issue under any circumstances. 59 If anything, therefore, not an absolute prohibition but only an injunction with a warning notice could be considered. Although the applications contained an injunction with a warning notice, this was worded in such a way that it amounted to an absolute prohibition. 60 In the defendant's view, the applications are incorrectly worded because use of the filter cartridges without the valve, i.e. outside the protected overall device, is not covered by the protection of the patent at issue from the outset. If anything, the filter cartridges may only not be used with the claimant's filter systems. However, this is not stated in the applications. Since the products are intended exclusively for private end users, the wording of the warning proposed by the Claimant is also objectionable because it is incomprehensible to private end users, who do not have specialist knowledge of patent law. The claimant must therefore at least specify the jugs in which the contested embodiment (allegedly) may not be used.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 30 61 Furthermore, according to the defendant, the obligation sought by the claimant to impose a contractual penalty on the purchasers is alien to the UPC. Article 64 EPGÜ does not provide for such a measure. Nor does the claimant explain why such a measure should be necessary in the present case as an exception. There is no apparent reason for this. Especially since such an obligation would make the defendant's products unsaleable. The defendant's customers, who are also private individuals, would not accept such an obligation. The measure would therefore be disproportionate. The amount of the contractual penalty sought is also disproportionate, as it exceeds the value of the products by a factor of 200. Disclosure of accounts (applications A. IV. No. 2 and No. 3) 62 The defendants are of the opinion that the version of the applications as set out in the reply does not make sense, even after repeated reading. Both applications are therefore completely unclear and thus inadmissible. They are therefore also not admissible. 63 If the claimant were to request disclosure of books with these applications, the application would also be inadmissible for another reason. Disclosure of the books could only be requested in the context of an application for damages pursuant to Rule 131 of the RoP. However, no such proceedings are currently pending between the parties. An application for disclosure of books is not provided for in the context of the information pursuant to Article 67 EPGÜ. Nor can such an application be derived from Rule 191 of the RoP. 64 According to the defendant, the application is also unfounded. The minimum requirements for such an application include, in particular, a statement of the reasons why the claimant needs access to this information. However, this is lacking. Applications for a declaration (applications A. VI, B. V, C. V.) 65 The claimant is of the opinion that the declaratory relief sought by it is admissible. Art. 64(2)(a) EPGÜ expressly states that a declaration of infringement of the patent is an admissible measure. No special conditions for asserting this request for a declaration are specified in either Article 64(2)(a) EPGÜ or in the RoP. In particular, the interest in a declaration known from the German system is not mentioned as a prerequisite and is therefore not automatically transferable to Article 64(2)(a) EPGÜ. Even if an interest in a declaratory judgment were required, this is already apparent from the infringement itself, in the Claimant's view. 66 The requests for a declaratory judgment are also specific. It was solely out of legal caution that the claimant submitted new versions of the applications for a declaration of indirect patent infringement in her reply, which also took into account the auxiliary applications submitted in connection with the application for amendment of the patent at issue. 67 The defendant are of the opinion that the claimant did not merely 'out of legal caution' Rather, it deleted the application for a positive declaration in all applications (A., B., C.). It was unclear what kind of applications these were supposed to be. The applications were also inadmissible because the defendants2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 31 deleted the application seeking a positive declaration in all claims (A., B., C.). It is unclear what kind of applications these are supposed to be. The applications are also inadmissible because the claimant did not submit any arguments regarding the requirements for an effective amendment of the claim pursuant to Rule 263.1 RoP. 68 If these applications were positive declaratory applications, they would be inadmissible. The EPGÜ – and the RoP – only recognise negative declaratory actions. However, even if an application for a declaration of patent infringement were to be considered admissible in principle, it would be inadmissible in the present case because the claimant had not demonstrated the necessary interest in a declaration and this was also not apparent. 69 However, none of this is relevant in the present case, as the claimant lacks at least the general legal interest in bringing the declaratory relief applications, since the claimant is also seeking injunctive relief at the same time as the declaratory relief applications. C. Counterclaim for annulment Main claim 70 The defendants are of the opinion that the patent at issue is invalid to the extent of claims 1 to 7 and claims 12 and 13, insofar as these refer back to one of claims 4 to 7. 71 In the defendant's view, the subject matter of claims 1 and 4 of the patent at issue goes beyond the content of the application as originally filed (Annex ES 10) within the meaning of Article 123(2) EPC (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). The feature 2 and feature 5 added in the opposition proceedings (see para. 90) only require that the valve actuating device be designed to open the valve by exerting a horizontal force component. The claimant had merely included the operating mechanism in the claims, but not the features of the shut- off body associated with it in the original application. However, the application documents filed were inseparably linked to the specific design of the shut-off body. In particular, this had to have an eccentrically arranged lever and a cam surface on which the valve actuating device engaged. Only this design brought about the effect referred to in claims 1 and 4. This was therefore an inadmissible generalisation of the original disclosure. Furthermore, a correct assessment of the original application showed that the feature added in the opposition proceedings was not in fact disclosed in the original application as belonging to the alleged invention claimed. 72 Furthermore, the subject matter of the patent is not new (Art. 54 EPC in conjunction with Art. 138(1)(a) EPC). Based on the interpretation of claim 1 put forward by the claimant, the defendant considers that this is prejudicial to novelty by virtue of objects known in general prior to the priority date, such as pins, plates, rings, balls or sleeves. The WO2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 32 2005/118104 A 1 (Annex D 1; hereinafter referred to as D 1) and WO 2008/058576 A 1 (Annex D 2; hereinafter referred to as D 2). 73 However, even on the basis of the correct interpretation, according to which the valve also forms part of the subject-matter of claim 1, the subject-matter of claim 1 is not patentable in view of the prior art. In particular, it is not new in relation to D 2, JP 3110210 U (Exhibit D 3, German translation Exhibit D 3a, hereinafter D 3 or 3a) and WO 2009/015679 A 1 (Exhibit D 4, hereinafter D 4). 74 Furthermore, based on DE 196 15 102 A1 (Exhibit D 5), claim 1 was not based on an inventive step and was therefore also invalid (Art. 56 in conjunction with Art. 138(1) a) EPC). According to the Claimant's overly broad interpretation, claim 1 would be suggested by a combination of D 1 and D 2. According to the correct interpretation, claim 1 is suggested by JP H08-258895 (Exhibit D 7, German translation Exhibit D 7a). Furthermore, the subject matter of claim 1 is also suggested to the skilled person on the basis of US 6 524 477 B 1 (Exhibit D 6) in conjunction with D 7. 75 Claim 4 is also invalid. This claim is also inadmissibly extended. Its subject matter is also disclosed or suggested by citations D 2 to D 7. 76 Claim 12 is also not patentable. A liquid treatment cartridge within the meaning of the claim is in any case apparent from D 3, D 5 and D 6, whereby the cartridges are components of the liquid treatment devices disclosed in the documents. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 12, insofar as it refers back to claims 4 or 5, is not patentable over these documents for analogous reasons, as are claims 1, 4 and 5. 77 The claimant says that there's no intermediate generalisation. The sub-feature of the horizontal force component is clearly shown as a generally disclosed teaching in the general description of the application documents on page 6, paragraphs 9 to 10. The sub-feature isn't disclosed as part of a combination of features either. Even if it were, there'd be no functional or structural connection. The specific design of the shut-off body demanded by the defendant is clearly only a preferred variant. Insofar as the defendant has extended their attack, which was originally directed only at claim 1, to claim 4 in their reply, the claimant requests that the extension be disregarded as inadmissible pursuant to Rule 263.1 of the RoP. 78 With regard to novelty in relation to common objects, the claimant complains that the defendant did not name any specific objects. Insofar as the counterclaim seeks to invoke an appeal to an obvious and prejudicial prior use, it has not been demonstrated what exactly was made available to the public, when, where, how and by whom. The abstract geometric basic bodies mentioned do not correspond to any specific objects. The attack is not sufficiently substantiated. 79 All of the claims asserted in the patent at issue are new and inventive. The action for annulment must therefore be dismissed.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 33 Application for amendment of the patent 80 In the defendant's view, the application for amendment of the patent is inadmissible. It was included in the defence to the counterclaim for annulment dated 2 December 2024, but was only uploaded to the correct Rule 30 CMS workflow after a court notice dated 20 January 2025. However, this was done late in accordance with Rule 9.2 RoP, as such an application must be filed within two months of service of a statement of defence with the defence to the counterclaim for annulment in accordance with Rules 29.1(a) and 30.1 RoP. The arguments relating to the amended claims must therefore be disregarded. The claims according to auxiliary requests 1 to 15 did not in part meet the requirements of Art. 84 EPC or Art. 123(2) EPC, and in part they also extended the scope of protection in an inadmissible manner according to Art. 123(3) EPC. Furthermore, they were all unpatentable. 81 The defendant also considers the applications filed in the document of 28 February 2025 to be inadmissible. This applies in particular to the newly submitted auxiliary application 16, which, if the proceedings had been conducted with due care, should have been submitted in the defence to the counterclaim. Furthermore, the inadmissibility follows from the fact that the granted claims 8 to 11, 14 and 15, as well as claims 12 and 13 with reference to claims 8 to 11, were not challenged in the counterclaim for annulment and therefore did not become the subject matter of the proceedings. Nevertheless, all of the Claimant's auxiliary requests provided for amendments to these uncontested claims, namely by changing their numbering and, above all, by changing their references. As a result of this amendment, the claims referred back to amended independent device claims in particular and were thus themselves amended in terms of content. Apart from that, these new auxiliary requests were also not suitable for completely removing the obstacles to the admissibility and patentability of the granted claims. LEGAL ASSESSMENT A. Admissibility 82 The action for infringement is admissible. The international jurisdiction of the Munich local division is based on Article 31 EPGÜ in conjunction with Article 71b(1) in conjunction with Article 4, Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (hereinafter: Brussels Ia Regulation). Pursuant to Article 32(1a) EPGÜ, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) also has exclusive jurisdiction for actions for actual or threatened infringement of European patents. The jurisdiction of the UPC is not excluded in the present case pursuant to Article 83(3) EPGÜ. The claimant withdrew its declaration of the opt-out on 15 April 2024, i.e. before the action was brought, pursuant to Article 83(4) EPGÜ. Since the defendants did not file a preliminary objection within the opposition period, both the jurisdiction of the UPC Agreement pursuant to Rule 19.1(a) of the RoP and the jurisdiction of the Munich local division pursuant to Rule 19.1(b) of the RoP are deemed to have been accepted, Rule 19.7 of the RoP. 83 The counterclaim for annulment of the patent at issue is also admissible. Pursuant to Art. 32(1)(e) UPC Agreement, the UPC Agreement has exclusive jurisdiction over counterclaims for2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 34 for the revocation of (European) patents for which – as in the present case – the exception provided for in Art. 83(3) EPC does not apply. The international jurisdiction of the UPC Agreement follows from Art. 31 UPC Agreement in conjunction with Art. 24(4), 71a(2a), 71b(1) Brussels Ia Regulation. B. Scope of protection of the patent at issue I. 84 The patent at issue relates to a valve actuating device for a valve located in the outlet opening of a liquid container of a liquid treatment device, and also to such a liquid container and a corresponding liquid treatment device (paragraph [0001] of the patent at issue specification; paragraphs cited below are those of the patent at issue specification). 85 Liquid treatment devices can be, for example, liquid filter devices which are used in particular for filtering water, especially drinking water (para. [0002]). Such filter devices have a liquid container for receiving unfiltered liquid, in the bottom of which an outlet is arranged in an order. A cartridge is arranged in the outlet area, through which the liquid must flow before it leaves the liquid container (para. [0003]). 86 According to the patent at issue, a distinction is made between gravity-operated systems and pressure-operated systems. For each system, there are corresponding cartridges and liquid containers with corresponding connection means (para. [0004]). Coffee and espresso machines use so-called suction cartridges, which are inserted into a special water tank that has a valve in the outlet area. When the water tank is inserted into the machine, this valve opens automatically and closes automatically when the tank is removed, so that residual water cannot run out of the water tank during transport. The valve is opened, for example, by a plunger located in the installation space (para. [0005]). Gravity-operated filter systems use liquid containers to hold the unfiltered water, which usually have a receiving chamber in the base into which a filter cartridge can be inserted with its upper edge sealing the chamber. The bottom wall of this receiving chamber has an outlet so that the filtered water escaping from the underside of the filter cartridge can flow into a collection container located below the liquid container (Fig. [0006]). When the filter cartridge is removed, unfiltered water can flow unhindered into the collection container for filtered water (para. [0007]). 87 According to the explanations in the patent specification, a disadvantage of the known systems is that unfiltered water can enter the liquid path of the filtered water if unfiltered water is accidentally poured into the liquid container before the system is ready for use. This can occur in particular if the liquid container has already been installed but the filter cartridge has been forgotten (para. [0008]).2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 35 88 The patent at issue then acknowledges US 3,561,506 (Exhibit ES 13) as prior art. This document discloses a liquid dispensing device comprising a housing, a reservoir that can be filled with liquid, a container that can be connected to the housing, and an outlet unit connected to the housing. The container comprises an inlet unit and a separate outlet opening or spout. The inlet unit is permanently connected to the container and comprises inlet channel means for guiding liquid into the container and sensor means for determining the liquid level in the container. The outlet unit comprises outlet channel means for guiding liquid from the reservoir to the inlet channel means and flow control means connected to the outlet channel means. The flow control means are operatively connected to the sensor means when the container is connected to the housing to cause fluid to flow through the channel means when the fluid level in the container is below a predetermined value. The fluid control means are detached from the sensor means by detaching the container from the housing, whereby the flow control means, when detached from the sensor means, prevent the fluid from flowing through the outlet channel means (para. [0009]). 89 The patent at issue then formulates its task as providing a liquid container with a valve which, in the mounted position and in particular without a treatment cartridge inserted, has a closed outlet opening. It is also the task of the invention to specify a corresponding valve actuating device and a liquid treatment device (para. [0010]). 90 To solve this task(s), the patent at issue claims a valve actuating device in claim 1, a liquid container in claim 4 and, in claim 12 in combination with claim 13, a liquid treatment device. These are characterised by a combination of the following features: Claim 1 1. Valve actuating device (60) of a valve (20). a. The valve (20) comprises a movable shut-off body (24) and a valve seat (23). i. The shut-off body (24) is 1. caught in a valve chamber (36) and 2. movable in the valve chamber (36) in a horizontal and vertical direction. b. The valve (20) is located i. in the outlet opening (18) of a liquid container (5) of a liquid treatment device (1) ii. in the closed position when the liquid container (5) is installed in the liquid treatment device (1). 2. The valve actuating device (60) is designed to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component when attached to the valve (20) in the closed position.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 36 Claim 4 1. Liquid container (5) of a liquid treatment device (1). 2. The fluid container (5) has an outlet opening (18) and a valve (20) arranged in the outlet opening (18). 3. The valve (20) comprises a movable shut-off body (24) and a valve seat (23). a. The shut-off body (24) is trapped in a valve chamber (36) and b. movable in the valve chamber (36) in the horizontal and vertical directions. 4. The valve (20) is in the closed position when the fluid container (5) is installed in the fluid treatment device (1). 5. A valve actuating device (60) is provided which, when attached to the valve (20) in the closed position, is designed to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component. Claims 12 and 13 1. Liquid treatment device (1) with a liquid treatment cartridge (40) and with a liquid container (5) according to one of claims 4 to 11. 2. The liquid container (5) has an outlet opening (18) and a valve (20) arranged in the outlet opening (18). 3. The valve (20) comprises a movable shut-off body (24) and a valve seat (23). a. The shut-off body (24) is trapped in a valve chamber (36) and b. movable in the valve chamber (36) in a horizontal and vertical direction. 4. The valve (20) is in the closed position when the fluid container (5) is installed in the fluid treatment device (1). 5. A valve actuating device (60) is provided which, when attached to the valve (20) in the closed position, is designed to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component. 6. The valve actuating device (60) is arranged on the liquid treatment cartridge (40). Order. II. 91 According to Article 69 EPC in conjunction with Article 1 of the Protocol on its interpretation, the patent claim is not only the starting point but also the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection of a European patent. The interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely on its precise wording in the language2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 37 Rather, the description and drawings must always be consulted as explanatory aids for interpreting the patent claim and not only used to resolve any ambiguities in the patent claim. However, this does not mean that the patent claim merely serves as a guideline and that its subject matter also extends to what, after examination of the description and drawings, appears to be the protection sought by the patent proprietor (Appeal Court, UPC CoA 335/2023, order of 23 February 2024; UPC CoA 1/2024, order of 13 May 2024; UPC CoA 182/2024, order of 25 September 2024; UPC CoA 382/2024, order of 14 February 2025; Central Chamber Munich, UPC CFI 1/2023, decision of 16 July 2024; Local Division Paris, UPC CFI 230/2023, decision of 4 July 2024; Local Division Munich, UPC CFI 233/2023, decision of 31 July 2024; Local Division Hamburg, UPC CFI 54/2023, decision of 26 August 2024; Local Division Düsseldorf, UPC CFI 363/2023, decision of 10 October 2024; Central Chamber Paris, decision of 5 November 2024, UPC CFI 309/2023; Local Division Mannheim, UPC CFI 340/2023, decision of 31 January 2025; Local Division Hamburg, UPC CFI 58/2024, decision of 19 February 2025). Patent claims and the description explaining them, as well as drawings, must be interpreted as a meaningful whole. 92 The patent claim must be interpreted from the perspective of a person skilled in the art. When applying these principles, adequate protection for the patent proprietor must be combined with sufficient legal certainty for third parties. These principles for interpreting a patent claim apply equally to the assessment of the infringement and the legal validity of a European patent. This follows from the function of patent claims, which, according to the European Patent Convention, serve to define the scope of protection of the patent under Article 69 EPC and thus the rights of the patent proprietor in the designated Contracting States under Article 64 EPC, taking into account the requirements for patentability under Articles 52 to 57 EPC (Appeal Court, UPC CoA 335/2023, order of 26 February 2024, UPC CoA 1/2024, order of 13 May 2024; UPC CoA 182/2024, order of 25 September 2024; UPC CoA 382/2024, order of 14 February 2025; Local Division Munich, UPC CFI 443/2024, decision of 25 November 2024). 93 The expert always interprets a feature of a patent claim in the light of the claim as a whole (Court of Appeal, UPC CoA 335/2023, order of 26 February 2024, UPC CoA 1/2024, order of 13 May 2024, UPC CoA 297/2024 order of 3 December 2024, UPC CoA 768/2024, order of 30 April 2025; Central Chamber Munich, UPC CFI 1/2023, decision of 16 July 2024; Local Division Munich, UPC CFI 443/2024, decision of 25 November 2024; Local Division Düsseldorf, UPC 355/2023, decision of 28 January 2025). The skilled person will deduce the technical function of the feature individually and in its entirety from the function of the individual feature in the context of the entire patent claim. With regard to the terms used in a patent specification, this may lead the skilled person to assign a meaning to a term that differs from its general usage. The patent specification can define terms independently and thus constitutes its own lexicon (Central Chamber Munich, UPC CFI 1/2023, decision of 16 July 2024; Central Chamber Paris, UPC CFI 309/2023, decision of 5 November 2024).2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 38 94 The meaning of a subclaim can, in principle, contribute to the correct interpretation of the main claim, whereby a subclaim generally only shows the possibility of a particularly advantageous formulation of the main claim (Local Division Munich, Order of 25 November 2024, UPC CFI 443/2024). Examples of embodiments do not, in principle, limit a broader claim (Appeal Court, UPC CoA 335/2023, order of 26 February 2024; UPC CoA 8/2024, order of 13 May 2024; UPC CoA 523/2024, Order of 3 March 2025) 95 Based on the dispute between the parties, this means the following in the present case: 1) 96 Claim 1 of the patent at issue protects (only) a valve actuating device, but not an overall device consisting of a valve actuating device and a valve. The mention of the valve in claim 1 is merely an indication of its purpose. 97 The skilled person – a university engineer specialising in mechanical engineering with several years of professional experience and relevant knowledge of processes and devices for treating and filtering liquids used in households – arrives at this understanding primarily on the basis of the wording of claim 1. This requires a "valve actuating device for a valve which ...", but not – as in claim 4, for example – a valve actuating device and a valve. Even if the chosen wording is unusual and it could have been expected that a wording such as "valve actuating device for a valve" or similar wording would be chosen to express that the valve actuating device alone is the subject matter of claim 1, it is also clear from the wording chosen and the absence of a "and" conjunction that the valve is merely the object of the claimed valve actuating device. Furthermore, a purely philological interpretation is not required. As always, the literal meaning of a claim is decisive. 98 Subclaims 2 and 3 also support the above understanding. These subclaims are the only claims referring back to claim 1. They each begin with "Device according to claim ..." and therefore refer only to the "device" according to claim 1, which means that, based on the chosen terminology alone, only the valve actuation device can be meant and not also the valve. The patent at issue does not contain any subclaim referring back to claim 1 which specifies the design of the valve in more detail. The valve is further specified in a subclaim only with reference to the adjacent claim 4, which contains an "and" conjunction. 99 The further classification of the claims points in the same direction, taking into account the description of the patent at issue. According to paragraph [0010], the invention is intended to provide a liquid container with a valve which, in the assembled position and in particular without a treatment cartridge inserted, has a closed outlet opening. Furthermore, the invention is formulated as having the task of providing a corresponding valve actuating device and a liquid treatment device. In accordance with this task2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 39 The patent at issue provides for three adjacent device claims: claim 1 (valve actuating device), claim 4 (liquid container with a valve) and claim 12 (liquid treatment device). The three device claims therefore focus on different components of an overall system and protect them side by side. 100 The fact that the valve is not the subject of claim 1 is also made clear to the skilled person by the fact that the liquid container protected by claim 4 has, according to feature 2 of claim 4, an outlet opening (18) and a valve (19) in the outlet opening. (18) arranged valve (20). The valve is therefore a component of the fluid container, as described and illustrated in paragraphs [0010] ("Fluid container with a valve"), [0029] ff., [0060] and Figures 1 and 4 ff. The valve covered by claim 4 is further characterised in its design in features 3 and 4 of claim 4, whereby these features correspond in content to features 1a) and 1b) of claim 1. This makes it clear that the valve actuating device (according to claim 1) is intended to interact with the valve, which is part of the fluid container (according to claim 4), which is also apparent from feature 5 of claim 4. The valve is therefore the reference object of the valve actuating device. If, on the other hand, it were assumed that claim 1 protects an overall device consisting of a valve actuating device and a valve, this would conflict to a certain extent with claim 4. Both would claim the valve. Due to the characterisation of the valve as a component of the fluid container, this would also mean that the fluid container would have to be a component of the overall device protected by claim 1. However, this is not apparent and is not claimed by the defendant. 101 Furthermore, claim 1 does not specify that the valve actuating device must be in order on another device and, if so, where. In line with this, the description explains, partly as preferred embodiments of the adjacent claims, that the valve actuation device (or the actuation element of the valve actuation device) can be designed as an independent component ( paras. [ 0018], [ 0022], [ 0028], [ 0043], [ 0077] ff.) or as a component of a fluid treatment cartridge in order (paras. [0017], [0028], [0048], [0067], [0103]) or also as a component of the fluid container executed (paras. [0028], [0044], [0045]). However, the valve actuating device is never described as a component of the valve or as attached to the valve. The valve is only described as the reference or effective object of the valve actuating device. 102 Based on this understanding, the characterisation of the valve in claim 1 is neither meaningless nor superfluous. Even if the valve itself is not the subject matter of the claim, but only part of the statement of purpose, the designation of the spatial and physical requirements necessary for the valve contributes indirectly to defining the design of the valve actuating device. The valve actuating device must be spatially and physically designed in such a way that it can fulfil its assigned function or purpose. As is usually the case, the purpose specified in the claim defines the protected subject matter in such a way that it must be objectively suitable for interacting with the valve in accordance with features 1a and 1b of claim 1. Even if this interaction is possible in the case of a large number of configurations of the2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 40 valve actuating device is possible, this constitutes a limitation of the valve actuating device. This is because it has not been argued or is otherwise apparent that valves other than those corresponding to features 1a and 1b do not exist or are not technically conceivable. 103 Insofar as the defendants are of the opinion that claim 1 is neither new nor inventive based on the understanding underlying this decision, this is not valid for legal reasons. The basis for the interpretation of a patent is the claim, taking into account the description and drawings of the patent at issue. However, it is not a criterion whether the interpretation leads to a result in which the patent claim is not legally valid. The question of the legal validity of the (interpreted) claim must be clarified solely in the context of an action for annulment or a counterclaim for annulment. 104 However, the defendant is correct in assuming that, when interpreting a patent claim, the recognised state of the art from which the teaching of the patent seeks to distinguish itself must be taken into account. They are also correct in arguing that, in case of doubt, the features of the characterising part of a claim should not be understood as being found in the prior art from which they are intended to be distinguished. In the present case, however, the distinction from US 3,561,506 (Exhibit ES 13), which was assessed in the patent at issue, does not support the assumption that claim 1 can only protect the combination of a valve actuating device and a valve, because otherwise there would be no difference from the prior art. 105 US 3,561,506 (Exhibit ES 13) discloses a liquid dispensing device comprising a housing, a reservoir fillable with liquid, a container connectable to the housing, and an outlet unit connected to the housing (para. [0009]). The patent at issue does not explicitly criticise this prior art. However, the disadvantages seen in relation to the (remaining) prior art also apply to US 3,561,506. It is not apparent that unfiltered water could not enter the liquid path of the filtered water in this device, especially if the container is already installed but the filter cartridge has been forgotten. The defendants do not claim this either. It is not apparent that US 3,561,506 already eliminates this disadvantage by means of a valve actuating device according to claim 1 is not apparent. 106 Furthermore, the defendant's argument would only be convincing if the US patent protected a valve actuating device that is objectively suitable for interacting with a valve according to the patent at issue, and the patent at issue seeks to distinguish itself from US 3,561,506 by not limiting itself to the (allegedly already known) valve actuation device, but now seeks to protect a combination of valve actuation device and valve. However, this is not apparent and, in particular, cannot be inferred from Figure 2 of the US specification, to which the defendants refer. Nor do the defendants argue that US 3,561,506 "only" protects a valve actuating device. On the contrary, US 3,561,506 (Exhibit ES 13) discloses a fluid dispensing unit comprising various components, including a valve in the form of a flow control device.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 41 107 In the present case, it is not necessary to decide whether the grant file can be used for interpretation (rejected: Munich local division, UPC CFI 443/2024 order of 25 November 2024; Düsseldorf local division, UPC CFI 452/2023, order of 9 April 2024; conditionally concurring: Munich local division, UPC CFI 292/2023, order of 20 December 2023; left open: Court of Appeal, UPC CoA 182/2024, order of 25 September 2024). Even if it were taken into account, it cannot be inferred from the international preliminary report (Exhibit ES 14) that the patent at issue was granted solely because, in the EPO's understanding, the valve is covered by the scope of protection of claim 1, as the defendant argues. 108 The international preliminary report (Exhibit ES 14) states that the subject matter of claim 1 differs from the valve actuating device known from US 3,561,506 in that the valve actuating device, when attached to the valve in the closed position, is designed to open the valve by exerting a horizontal force component (p. 1). It goes on to state that the shut-off bodies known from the prior art are only movable in a vertical direction in their order and are also only moved in a vertical direction to open the valve. It is not obvious to modify the valve actuating device of the valve known from the prior art in such a way that a horizontal force component is exerted to open the valve (p. 2). Even if the EPO refers to the mobility of known shut-off bodies in its preliminary report, this does not mean that the patent was only granted because the valve is now also the subject of claim 1. The decisive factor on which the EPO bases its decision is the mode of operation of the valve's valve actuating device, in particular the application of a horizontal force component, which in turn requires that the valve's shut-off element must also be horizontally movable. In the EPO's view, the application of the horizontal force component is new and was not obvious. However, this is not necessarily linked to the fact that the valve is also the subject matter of claim 1. 109 For similar reasons, the defendant's reference to statements made by the claimant in the opposition proceedings is also unconvincing (Exhibit ES 15). Statements made by the applicant during the grant proceedings may, in principle, have indicative significance for how a person skilled in the art understands a feature or the claim, so that their consideration in the interpretation is, in principle, unobjectionable. In the present case, however, even with regard to the claimant's statements cited in the document of 8 November 2013, these do not contain any statement as to whether the valve itself is also the subject matter of claim 1 or whether 'only' the valve actuation device of the valve is protected. In the latter case, the valve is the reference object and the valve actuating device must be designed in such a way that it can objectively interact with the valve described in more detail. The spatial and physical design of the valve – and its difference from the prior art – is therefore also relevant. 110 It also follows from the above that the defendant's submission regarding the preliminary opinion of the Opposition Division dated 1 October 2014 (Exhibit MBN 1) is also unsuccessful. Nor can it be inferred from this statement that the EPO considered the valve to be part of the protected subject matter and that the patent was granted or not revoked in the opposition proceedings solely for this reason2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 42 Apart from the fact that the preliminary objection was withdrawn after the preliminary opinion, so that no decision was taken by the Opposition Division, the opinion does not reveal anything more than that the specific design of the valve, which differs from the prior art, is relevant to the design of the valve actuating device. This is also the case if 'only' the valve actuating device, which must interact with the valve in the manner claimed, is protected. 111 Finally, the same applies to the Claimant's allegedly contradictory argument in the counterclaim for revocation. 2) 112 Claim 1 therefore protects a valve actuating device of a valve in accordance with feature 1. This is to be understood as a spatial-physical device which, as the term itself indicates, serves to actuate a valve. The valve actuating device therefore serves a specific purpose. a) 113 The valve to be actuated must be of a type which has a design in accordance with features 1a and 1b. According to this, the valve is designed in such a way that it is in the closed position (feature 1b ii) both when the fluid container is removed and when it is installed, in accordance with the task specified in paragraph [0010]. If untreated liquid is accidentally filled in, it cannot leak out or enter the fluid path of the treated liquid (para. [0013]). Unlike in the prior art, unfiltered water cannot flow unhindered into the collection container for filtered water when the filter cartridge is removed. 114 Since the valve is always in the closed position, a measure is required to release the outlet opening and allow the fluid to flow out (para. [0014] ff.). The outlet opening is released by means of the valve actuating device, which is designed to open the valve when attached to the valve in the closed position. If the valve actuating device is removed or is no longer attached, the valve closes again. 115 The manner in which the valve is actuated is standardised by feature 2 of claim 1. According to this, the valve actuating device is designed to open the valve by exerting a horizontal force component when attached to the valve in the closed position. The claim does not specify how, when and by what means the horizontal force component is exerted. In particular, it does not specify that the valve actuating device (itself) must exert a horizontal force or that the valve actuating device must move horizontally. Rather, it only refers to the application of a component, i.e. part of a force, when attached, and only specifies the direction in which this force component must be applied or act. In view of this, it is also in accordance with the claim, for example, if the valve actuating device is attached to the valve in a vertical direction if and to the extent that, if necessary through the design of the shut-off body of the valve, a2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 43 horizontal force component is applied, possibly through the design of the valve's shut-off body. This is confirmed, inter alia, by the preferred embodiments shown in Figures 1, 4 and 5. Feature 2 also contains no information on the magnitude of the horizontal force component to be exerted. Nor is it necessary to specify this precisely. Any size that fulfils the purpose of exerting the horizontal force component, i.e. opening the valve in the closed position to allow water to flow, is included. Tilting the shut-off body of the valve is sufficient, as paragraphs [0031], [0034], [0068] and [0093] demonstrate. 116 A prerequisite for opening the valve by applying a horizontal force component when attaching the valve actuating device to the valve in the closed position is the horizontal and vertical mobility of the valve shut-off element provided in accordance with feature 1a i 2. This freedom of movement allows the use of a device that exerts a horizontal force component (para. [0030]). The vertical movement allows the shut-off body to be lifted, while the horizontal movement allows it to be "pushed aside". However, patent claim 1 is not limited to exclusively horizontal or vertical movements of the shut-off body. As already mentioned, paragraphs [0031], [0034], [0068] and [0093] expressly describe tilting of the shut-off body as being in accordance with the invention. Feature 1a i 2. Therefore, it also includes tilting. The claim does not specify the extent to which the aforementioned mobility of the shut-off body must be present and whether one or the other type of mobility is used first when the horizontal force component is applied. In this respect, too, the only decisive factor is whether and to what extent the valve is opened. 117 It follows from all of the above that the valve actuating device must be able to interact with a valve in accordance with features 1a and 1b. It must be objectively suitable for opening the valve in accordance with feature 2 when attached to the valve in the closed position by applying a horizontal force component so that water can flow through the outlet opening. 118 The valve actuating device of the valve can be designed as a separate component (paras. [0018], [0022], [0028], [0043], [0077] or as component of a liquid treatment cartridge in order (paras. [0017], [0028], [0048], [0067], [0103]) or also be designed as a component of the liquid container (paras. [0028], [0044], [0045]). 119 Claim 1 does not specify the shape or material of the valve actuating device. It may therefore be a device made of rigid or elastic materials and may, for example, have the shape of a pin, a plate, a ring, a sleeve or even a ring-shaped element (paragraphs [0027], [0049]). The design is only restricted insofar as it must be objectively suitable for interacting with the valve in accordance with features 1a and 1b, as explained, in order to bring about feature 2. b) 120 According to subclaim 2, the valve actuating device may have at least one actuating element (para. [0023]). According to subclaim 3, the actuating element is preferably pluggable (para. [0024]), whereby the valve actuating device2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 44 can be designed to be inserted both from above into the outlet opening and from below (para. [0042]). 121 The term "pluggable" is understood by the skilled person to mean inserting, attaching or connecting. This corresponds to the general understanding as can be seen from the dictionary submitted by the parties. The contested patent specification does not indicate any restriction to a specific type of pluggability or to a different understanding. The passages cited in the description relate only to preferred embodiments and do not limit the broader (subordinate) claim. Apart from that, insertion (paras. [0042], [0078], [0086], [0091], [0092]) and attachment/clipping (paras. [0081], [0083], [0084]) are specifically described as being in accordance with the invention. The technical meaning of pluggability does not imply any restriction to a particular type of pluggability. The actuating element is part of the valve actuating device, which is to be mounted on the valve in the closed position in order to open the valve by exerting a horizontal force component. The pluggability therefore refers to the valve; it is intended to support the attachment of the valve actuating device to the valve. This is possible with both plug-on and plug-in actuating elements. 3) 122 Claim 4 protects a fluid container of a fluid treatment device (feature 1). 123 The liquid container has a discharge opening and a valve arranged in the discharge opening, as specified in feature 2 of claim 4. The valve is therefore part of the liquid container. Its specific design is defined by features 3 and 4 of claim 4. According to these, the valve comprises a movable shut-off body and a valve seat (feature 3), wherein the shut-off body is captured in a valve chamber (feature 3a) and is movable in the valve chamber in a horizontal and vertical direction (feature 3b). When the fluid container is installed in the fluid treatment device, the valve is in the closed position (feature 4). Water cannot therefore flow through the outlet opening. This is only possible when the valve actuating device is attached to the valve in the closed position, as it is designed to open the valve by exerting a horizontal force component (feature 5). In this respect, reference can be made to the above explanations. 4) 124 The subject matter of the claimed combination of claims 12 and 13 is a liquid treatment device with a liquid treatment cartridge and a liquid container according to one of claims 4 to 11. 125 A liquid treatment device within the meaning of feature 1 is understood by the skilled person to be a device which treats a liquid or with which a liquid is treated. This can be, for example, a liquid filter device which can be used in particular for filtering water, especially drinking water (para. [0002]). The liquid treatment cartridge according to feature 1 is inserted into a liquid container2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 45 . It is traversed by liquid for treatment purposes before the liquid leaves the liquid container (paras. [0003], [0006], [0051] et seq.). 126 According to feature 6 of the asserted combination of claims, the valve actuating device, whose mode of operation and function are clarified in feature 5 and to which reference can also be made in this regard, is in order on the liquid treatment cartridge. This means that the valve is opened when the fluid treatment cartridge is inserted (para. [0017], [0103]). This ensures that only treated fluid can leave the fluid container when untreated fluid is filled into the fluid container. C. Counterclaim for annulment 127 The counterclaim for annulment is largely successful. The patent at issue is largely invalid in its registered form. The alternative application to amend the patent at issue is successful in the form of auxiliary application 16. I. 128 Claims 1 and 4 of the patent at issue are invalid. Claim 12 of the patent at issue, on the other hand, is valid. 1) 129 Claim 1 of the patent at issue in the registered version is invalid. a) 130 However, the objection of the defendant of inadmissible extension is unsuccessful. aa) 131 Article 138(1)(c) EPC provides that a European patent may be declared invalid with effect for a Contracting State if the subject-matter of the European patent extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed or, if the patent was granted on the basis of a divisional application, beyond the content of the earlier application as originally filed (Art. 123(2) EPC). In order to determine whether there is an inadmissible extension, it must be established what the skilled person, using their general knowledge and objectively, would immediately and unambiguously derive from the entire application as filed at the time of filing, whereby an implicitly disclosed subject matter, i.e. a subject matter which is clearly and unambiguously derived from what is expressly stated, must also be considered part of the content. If the patent is a divisional application, this requirement applies to each earlier application (Appeal Court, UPC CoA 382/2024, order of 14 February 2025; Local Division The Hague, UPC CFI 131/2024, order of 19 June 2024; Local division Düsseldorf, UPC CFI 363/2023, decision of 10 October 2024; Central Chamber Paris, UPC CFI 316/2023, decision of 17 January 2025: Local division Mannheim,2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 46 UPC CFI 471/2023, Decision dated 06.06.2025; local division Hamburg, UPC CFI 173/2024 and 424/2024, decision of 10 July 2025). bb) 132 On this basis, there is no inadmissible extension of claim 1 of the patent at issue. The subject matter of claim 1 does not go beyond the content of the originally filed version of patent application WO 2010/081845 (Exhibit ES 10). 133 Claim 1 of the patent application relates to a valve actuating device. According to the wording of claim 1, when attached to the valve in the closed position, this device is designed to open the valve. The valve actuating device is therefore disclosed as a valve actuating device for opening the valve (Annex ES 10, p. 3, lines 6-7, 16-18, p. 2, line 26). The skilled person also clearly and unambiguously understands from the patent application that the valve is to be opened by the valve actuating device exerting a horizontal force component. In the general description section, on page 6, lines 6 to 8 of the patent application, it is first emphasised that the free movement of the shut-off body, i.e. its movement in the horizontal and vertical directions, enables "the use of valve actuating devices or actuating elements acting in the horizontal direction". This is continued in lines 9 to 11, which state that the "shutoff body can be tilted, for example, by applying a horizontal force component to release the valve seat and thus release the outlet opening." The mode of operation of the valve actuating device is therefore disclosed. 134 Insofar as the defendant is of the opinion that this mode of operation is disclosed in the patent application only in combination with a specific design of the valve's shut-off body, namely with an eccentrically arranged lever having a curved cam surface, as belonging to the invention as claimed, this cannot be agreed with. On page 6, lines 12 to 14 of the patent application (Exhibit ES 10), it states: "It is therefore preferable that the shut-off body has an element protruding from the valve chamber, which is preferably an eccentric lever." Even if the introductory wording and, in particular, the word "therefore" establish a link to the previous paragraph, in which the mode of operation is described, this reference is not to be understood in the sense of causality, as assumed by the defendant. The sentence continues and the use of the word "preferably" makes it clear that the design of the shut-off body (now described) is (only) one possible design of the shut-off body, but not a mandatory one. A causal connection in the sense that the application of the horizontal force component only leads to the tilting of the valve seat in conjunction with the release of the outlet opening if the shut-off body has the aforementioned design cannot therefore be inferred by a person skilled in the art from this sentence. 135 Furthermore, on page 6, lines 12 to 14 of the patent application (Exhibit ES 10), there is initially only mention of an element protruding from the valve chamber, but not of an eccentrically arranged lever. This is only described as a preferred protruding element. In lines 15 to 16, a design of this ( only) preferred lever with a cam surface is then described as2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 47 "preferably". In this respect, too, this is therefore only a description of a preferred design of a part of a merely preferred design, and not a mandatory requirement. Accordingly, subclaims 13 to 15 of the patent application (Exhibit ES 10) also refer (only) to one of the aforementioned preferred designs. However, the patent application does not disclose a subclaim or a passage in the description containing the combination of all the features mentioned by the defendant. 136 Nor will the skilled person arrive at the conclusion, on the basis of functional or structural relationships, that the patent application discloses the aforementioned mode of operation exclusively in combination with a lever arranged eccentrically on the shut-off body and having a cam surface. First, the skilled person recognises that claim 1 of the patent application is directed to the valve actuating device, which means that the valve is (only) the reference object. Furthermore, it is not apparent that, for technical reasons, the claimed valve actuating device can only open the valve by applying a horizontal force component if the valve has a shut-off body to which an eccentrically arranged lever with a cam surface is attached. The skilled person understands from the original disclosure that a valve can (already) be opened by a valve actuating device by applying a horizontal force component if the valve has a shut-off body that is freely movable, i.e. movable in the horizontal and vertical directions. This is expressly stated in the general description section of the patent application (Exhibit ES 10) on page 6, lines 4 to 8, and is also found in claim 12 of the patent application. (Only) in this respect is there therefore a functional connection. 137 Nothing else follows from the preferred embodiments described and illustrated in the patent application. It is true that they all show a valve with an eccentrically arranged lever with a cam surface. Nevertheless, they all (merely) reveal that, when attached, the valve actuating device can open a valve by tilting it when a horizontal force component is applied if the valve has a shut-off body that is freely movable. They therefore describe and illustrate the aforementioned functional relationship. However, the skilled person will not derive from them any further functional relationship that is generally valid for the claimed invention. This is because, according to the description on page 18, lines 13 ff., Figures 24 to 32 illustrate embodiments that are inserted from below and thus engage with the disc 26 or the spherical projection 28 shown in the figures. b) 138 However, the technical teaching of claim 1 of the patent at issue is anticipated by the prior art and therefore lacks novelty. aa) 139 According to Art. 54(1) EPC, an invention is considered new if it does not form part of the state of the art. A technical teaching does not form part of the state of the art if it differs from the prior art in at least one of the known features2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 48 . Only that which is immediately and unambiguously apparent to a person skilled in the art from the relevant publication or prior use is considered to be anticipated by the state of the art (Court of Appeal, UPC CoA 182/2024, order of 25 September 2024; UPC CoA 382/2024, order of 14 February 2025; Central Chamber Munich, UPC CFI 252/2023, decision of 17 October 2024). Findings that an expert only gains on the basis of further considerations or the use of further documents or uses are not prior art (local division The Hague, UPC CFI 239/2024, decision of 22 November 2024; Local division Düsseldorf, UPC CFI 16/2024, decision of 14 January 2025) 140 The burden of proof for facts relating to the invalidity of a patent lies with the plaintiff in nullity proceedings (Court of Appeal, UPC CoA 335/2023 Order of 26 February 2024), in the present case the defendants in the infringement proceedings and plaintiffs in the counterclaim for nullity. 141 On this basis, the invention protected by claim 1 is not new in relation to the prior art cited by the defendant. bb) 142 However, based on the defendant's submission, no prior art prejudicial to the novelty of claim 1 can be identified in the form of generally known objects. Even if the defendant's assumption that objects such as pins, plates, rings, balls and sleeves were generally known on the priority date is correct and such objects may possibly constitute an embodiment of a valve actuating device, the defendant's submission is insufficient. The submission is vague and far too general. The defendants have not identified any specific object and have not demonstrated in detail that it was used previously and is suitable as a valve actuating device for interacting with a valve in accordance with features 1a and 1b and for applying a horizontal force to it within the meaning of feature 2. cc) 143 However, the technical teaching of claim 1 is anticipated by D 1 (WO 2005/118104 A 1) in a manner that destroys novelty. 144 In this context, particular importance must be attached to the fact that claim 1 (only) protects the valve actuating device, but not the valve itself. Rather, as explained above, the valve is (only) the reference object. The valve actuating device must (only) be suitable for interacting with a (conceptual) valve that has the features mentioned in claim 1 and be designed in such a way that, when attached to such a valve, it can exert a horizontal force component to open it, in accordance with feature 2. Since, accordingly, (only) the valve actuating device with its spatial and physical features suitable for a specific purpose is protected and the valve is therefore a statement of purpose, the only relevant factor for the novelty test is whether a device with the spatial-physical features as required by the patent at issue for the valve actuating device is already disclosed in the prior art. If this is the case, the device is disclosed "as such", regardless of its intended use. Something else only applies if2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 49 the device disclosed as such with all its spatial and physical features is unsuitable for the intended purpose of the patent at issue or requires modification before it can be used for this purpose. 145 D 1 discloses a device for filtering liquids with a filter cartridge 100 which, as shown in Figure 4 of D 1 below, has an indentation 131 in its bottom wall 112, to which a mandrel 132 is moulded, which extends vertically downwards (Exhibit D 1, page 19, line 21 ff.). 146 The mandrel 132 of D 1 (undisputedly) discloses the spatial and physical features of the valve actuating device within the meaning of claim 1 of the patent at issue. In paragraph [0067] of the patent at issue, a ring-shaped pin (pin 62) formed on the underside of an indentation of a filter cartridge is explicitly described as a preferred embodiment of a valve actuating device (see also Figures 1 and 4 of the patent at issue). D 1 therefore discloses a valve actuating device "as such". The fact that D 1 does not mention a valve (with features 1a and 1b of claim 1) and/or that the pin 132 is not described as a valve actuating device but as a fixing means and guide element which also has a sealing function, and/or that no purpose within the meaning of the patent at issue is mentioned in D 1 is irrelevant for the reasons set out above. What is decisive is the disclosure of all the spatial and physical features of the device protected by the patent. 147 The mandrel 132 of the D 1 and the valve actuating device disclosed therein are suitable for the intended purpose of the patent at issue. The parties agree that when the filter cartridge 100 of D 1 is inserted from above into a liquid container in whose outlet opening a valve corresponding to features 1a and 1b is arranged, the annular mandrel 132 can exert a2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 50 horizontal force component on the shut-off body of the valve and the shut-off body would be pushed to the side or tilted. 148 Insofar as the claimant nevertheless considers this to be insufficient because, when the shut-off body is pushed to the side, no water would flow through the "added" valve due to the design of the indentation 131 shown in D 1 in the bottom of the receiving chamber of the inlet funnel 10 and, in particular, the bead 34 shown there, this is not the correct approach. valve, this is not the correct approach. Even if the claimant is to be agreed with in this respect that the skilled person does not consider the disclosed pin 132 in isolation from the rest of the disclosure of D 1, it is nevertheless irrelevant whether the valve referred to in the patent at issue can be "conceptually inserted" into the design shown in D 1 (with the specific specifications shown there) and whether this added valve would then be opened in a device corresponding to D 1 within the meaning of the patent at issue. It is not a question of combining a valve according to the features of the patent at issue with the disclosed teaching of D 1. The decisive factor is whether the valve actuating device shown in D 1 is designed in such a way that it can open a valve – even if only imagined – corresponding to the patent at issue by exerting a horizontal force component, so that the outlet opening is opened and water flows through. 149 This can be assumed. Filter cartridges are usually inserted vertically or upright into a liquid container, as shown in D 1. When inserted in this way, a pin 132 moulded onto the underside of an indentation in the filter cartridge 100 and projecting vertically downwards exerts a vertical force on a valve located in the outlet opening of a liquid container. When the mandrel 132 is attached to the valve, a horizontal force component can also be exerted. When the pin 132 is attached, a horizontal force component can be exerted due to the design of the valve. The valve according to features 1a and 1b of the patent at issue can, for example, be one that has a shut-off body with a free, upwardly projecting lever, as shown in all the figures of the patent at issue. Such a valve is opened when the filter cartridge of D 1 is inserted vertically with the pin 132 shown, as the pin 132 engages with the free lever. The vertical force exerted by the pin 132 causes a horizontal force component to act on the shut-off body. This horizontal force component causes the shut- off body, which can move in the horizontal and vertical directions, to tilt, with the result that it partially releases the valve seat and water can flow through this opening to a practically usable extent. dd) 150 Furthermore, the technical teaching of claim 1 is not new in view of D 2 (WO 2008/058576). 151 D 2 discloses a device 1 for preparing a hot beverage, which comprises a mechanical timer 5. A shaft 7 protrudes from a side of the timer 5 opposite a hand knob 6 and rotates together with the timer about an axis 5'. The timer 5 is housed in a bracket 8 which contains a mounting plate 9 on the side facing away from the hand knob 6, through which the shaft 7 extends. An eccentric 10 is mounted on the shaft 7 and rotates with the shaft 7 about the axis 7'. The bracket 8 forms, together with the time switch 5 , the mounting plate 9 , the2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 51 Eccentric 10 and a guide 11 form a unit. The timer 5 is connected via a connecting element 16 to a shut-off device 13, which closes an outlet device 14 from the brewing chamber 3. The shut-off device 13 is attached to one end of the connecting element 16. The end of the connecting element 16 opposite the shut-off device 13 is received in the guide 11 in such a way that the connecting element 16 is centred. An actuating element 17 is arranged below the guide 11 on the connecting element 16, which is provided with a substantially cylindrical or rotationally symmetrical peripheral surface 17a, with which the actuating element 17 bears against the peripheral surface of the eccentric 10 or can engage with it. After a set pulling time has elapsed, the shaft 7 is rotated, whereby an area 10b of the eccentric 10 remote from the axis comes to bear against the circumferential surface 17a of the actuating element 17. This pushes the connecting element 16 to the side and causes it to tilt into a position in which the shut-off member 13 releases the opening 15. In the tilted position, the connecting element 16 is guided in the guide 11 (Exhibit D 2, p. 9, lines 3 ff.). For clarification, Figures 1 and 3 of D 2 are shown below. 152 Insofar as the claimant objects to D 2 on the grounds that it does not disclose a valve according to features 1a and 1b, this is not valid because D 2 does not have to disclose such a valve in view of the purpose specified in claim 1. Rather, it is sufficient to disclose the spatially and physically protected features of the valve actuating device and that the disclosed device is suitable for the stated purpose (see above, para. 144). Apart from that, D 2 discloses a valve that is in accordance with the claim. 153 D 2 shows a valve with which the outlet opening 15 of the brewing container 2 can be closed and opened. For this purpose, the valve has a shut-off member 13 which is designed as a sealing element and seals the outlet opening 15 (Annex D 2, p. 6, lines 12 ff.). The shut-off member 13 contains an elastically deformable2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 52 Part 13a, whose diameter is significantly larger than the diameter of the conical wall part 15a and which thus acts as a valve (Annex D 2, p. 6, line 18 ff., p. 7, line 1 ff.). The shut- off device 13 is attached to one end of the connecting element 16, at the other end of which an actuating element is arranged in order (Annex D 2, p. 7, lines 4 ff.). The shut-off device 13, the connecting element 16 and the actuating element 17 thus form a valve body or shut-off body within the meaning of feature 1a, and the conical wall section 15a of the outlet opening 15 of the brewing container 2 forms a valve seat in accordance with feature 1a. The valve or shut-off body is also enclosed in a valve chamber in accordance with feature 1a i 1, as it is housed in a cylindrical housing 18 which is closed at the top by a mounting plate 9 (not shown in Figures 1 and 2, Figure 5 of D 2, p. 7, line 18 ff.). 154 The shut-off body formed by the shut-off member 13, the connecting element 16 and the actuating element 17 is also movable in the horizontal and vertical directions in the valve chamber formed by the housing 18 and the mounting plate 9, in accordance with feature 1a i. 2. of claim 1. With regard to the first-mentioned direction, this is undisputed between the parties. However, vertical mobility must also be assumed. This follows from Figure 3 and the description on page 9, lines 3 ff. of D 2. These show and describe that the connecting element 16, on which the shut-off member 13 and the actuating element 17 are located, can be tilted from a closed position to an open position. The connecting element 16 is pushed to the side and moves into a tilted position. However, this tilted position requires that the valve body can move in both directions, i.e. vertically and horizontally. A specific range or extent of movement in these two directions is not necessary. As explained above, the only decisive factor is that the valve opens and water can flow through it. Paragraph [0030] of the description of the patent at issue explains that the shut-off body in the valve chamber can move horizontally and vertically, and that this free movement of the shut-off body allows the use of valve actuating devices or actuating elements acting in a horizontal direction. The skilled person understands from this that a horizontal force component causes the shut-off body to tilt. After reading the patent at issue, the skilled person will therefore understand the mobility of the shut-off body in the horizontal and vertical directions to mean that the shut-off body can tilt. This is disclosed in D 2. In the tilted position, the shut-off member 13 releases the opening 15 (Annex D 2, p. 9, lines 9, 13 ff. and Figure 3). 155 D 2 also discloses features 1b i. and ii. of claim 1. The valve shown in D 2 is located in the outlet opening 15 of the brewing container 2. The brewing container 2 is a liquid container within the meaning of the patent at issue. It is placed on a receiving vessel 24 which receives the prepared beverage (Exhibit D 2, p. 8, lines 15 ff.). Together with the receiving vessel 24, the brewing container 2 forms a liquid treatment device. 156 The D 2 also shows a valve actuation device as described in feature 1, which is designed according to feature 2. The valve actuation device is the eccentric 10. After rotation of the shaft 7, its area remote from the axis rests against the peripheral surface 17a of the actuating element 17 (Appendix D 2, Figures 2 and 4), whereby the valve actuating element 16 is pushed to the side and moves into a tilted position, which leads to the opening of the outlet opening 15 (Appendix D 2, p. 9, lines2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 53 3 ff. and Figure 3). The eccentric 10 thus actuates the valve and moves it from the closed position to the open position so that water can flow through the outlet opening 15. This is achieved by the contact of a part of the eccentric and the application of a horizontal force component. 2) 157 Claim 4 of the patent at issue is not patentable. a) 158 It can be left open whether the extension of the objection of inadmissible extension to claim 4 of the patent at issue, as made in the reply to the counterclaim for annulment, is to be regarded as an extension of the claim within the meaning of Rule 263 of the RoP and whether such an extension would be admissible. Even if this were the case, the objection would remain unsuccessful. The considerations set out in relation to claim 1 apply mutatis mutandis. b) 159 However, the technical teaching claimed in claim 4 is prejudicially anticipated. 160 The novelty is not precluded by D 3 (JP 3 110 210 U), which relates to an air humidifier that has a valve for closing a storage chamber. This document does not disclose a valve chamber within the meaning of feature 3a of claim 4. Contrary to the defendant's submission, the skilled person will not regard the cylindrical chamber 17 shown in Figures 5 and 6 of D 3, together with the coil spring 25, as such. The space of the cylindrical chamber 17 is not limited or confined in any way at the top; rather, the valve body 22 rests on and closes the opening 18 of the cylindrical chamber 17. The coil spring 25 connects to the bottom. However, from the perspective of the skilled person, its interior is not a chamber or a section thereof. 161 Claim 4 is also not rendered novel by D 4 (WO 2009/015679). This document does not disclose feature 3a either. A valve chamber in which a shut-off body is trapped is not shown in Figure 2 of this document referred to by the defendant. The defendants argue that, in view of Figure 2, the end of lever 18 may be guided through a slot in the base or guide element 21. Even if one assumes that the skilled person sees or reads a slot in Figure 2, a slot in the base or guide element 21 does not constitute a valve chamber within the meaning of the patent at issue. Whether, as the defendant argue, it is also an obvious option for the skilled person to order the lever 18 in an enclosure in the practical implementation of the filter system according to Figure 2 is irrelevant for the novelty assessment. In this respect, a direct and unambiguous disclosure is required. 162 However, claim 4 of the patent at issue is anticipated by D 2 in a manner that destroys novelty. D 2 discloses all the features of claim 4. To avoid repetition, reference is made to the statements in paragraphs 156 to 161.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 54 3) 163 Claim 12 of the patent at issue is, on the other hand, patentable. The defendant's attacks on the validity of the patent are unsuccessful in this respect, even though claim 4, to which the claim refers, is not patentable for the reasons stated above. a) 164 The technical teaching of claim 12, which protects a liquid treatment device with a liquid treatment cartridge and a liquid container according to one of claims 4 to 11, is new. 165 The defendants do not claim that D 2 discloses a liquid treatment cartridge within the meaning of feature 1 of claim 1. They appeal solely to D 3. However, it is not necessary to decide whether D 3 discloses a liquid treatment device according to claim 12. Even if this were the case, it does not disclose the other features, in particular feature 3a. A valve chamber according to the claim is not shown. b) 166 The technical teaching of claim 12 is also based on an inventive step. aa) 167 According to Art. 56 EPC, an invention is considered to involve an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art from the state of the art. This is always a question of the individual case and requires an examination taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances. A retrospective approach should be avoided here. 168 The inventive step must be assessed from the perspective of a person skilled in the art, based on the entire state of the art, including the general knowledge of the person skilled in the art. It is assumed that the person skilled in the art had access to the entire publicly available state of the art at the relevant point in time. The decisive factor is whether the claimed subject matter is such that the skilled person would have found it on the basis of their knowledge and skills, for example through obvious modifications of what was already known (Central Chamber Munich, decision of 16 July 2024, UPC CFI 1/2023; Central Chamber Munich, decision of 17 October 2024, UPC CFI 252/2023). 169 In order to assess whether a claimed invention was obvious to a skilled person, a starting point in the state of the art must first be established. It must be justified why the skilled person would consider a particular part of the state of the art to be a realistic starting point. A starting point is realistic if its teaching would have been of interest to a person skilled in the art who, on the priority date of the patent in question, wanted to develop a product or process similar to that disclosed in the prior art and thus had a2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 55 similar underlying problem to that of the claimed invention (see Court of Appeal, order of 26 February 2024, UPC-CoA 335/2023 App 576355/2023, p. 34 at "cc"; Central Chamber Munich, Decision of 16 July 2024, UPC CFI 1/2023; Central Chamber Munich Decision of 17 October 2024, UPC CFI 252/2023; Central Chamber Paris, Decision of 29 November 2024, UPC CFI 307/2023; Central Chamber Paris, Decision of 26 December 2024, UPC CFI 338/2023 UPC CFI 410/2023; Local Division Düsseldorf, decision of 10 October 2024, UPC CFI 363/2023; Local Division Düsseldorf, decision of 10 April 2025, UPC CFI 50/2024; Local division Hamburg, UPC CFI 173/2024 and 424/2024, decision of 10 July 2025). There may be several realistic starting points. It is not necessary to determine the "most promising" starting point (Central Chamber Munich, decision of 16 July 2024, UPC CFI 1/2023; Central Chamber Munich, decision of 17 October 2024, UPC CFI 252/2023; Central Chamber Paris, decision of 5 November 2024, UPC CFI 315/2024; Central Chamber Paris, decision of 26 December 2024, UPC CFI 338/2023 UPC CFI 410/2023). 170 In general, a claimed solution is obvious if the skilled person, based on the state of the art, would have been motivated, i.e. had an incentive or reason, to consider the claimed solution and implement it as the next step in the further development of the state of the art (Court of Appeal, order of 26 February 2024, UPC CoA 335/2023 App 576355/2023, p. 34 f.; Central Chamber Munich, decision of 16 July 2024, UPC CFI 1/2023; Central Chamber Munich, decision of 17 October 2024, UPC CFI 252/2023; Local Division Düsseldorf, decision of 10 October 2024, UPC CFI 363/2023; local division Mannheim, Decision of 02.04.2025, UPC CFI 365/2023; local division Düsseldorf, Decision of 10 April 2025, UPC CFI 50/2024. Different approach: Local Division Munich Panel 1, Decision of 4 April 2025, UPC CFI 501/2023). Depending on the facts and circumstances of the individual case, it may be permissible to combine disclosures of the state of the art. bb) 171 On this basis, it cannot be concluded that the technical teaching protected by claim 12 is obvious to a person skilled in the art from the prior art. 172 In their attack on the validity of claim 12, the defendants limited themselves to citing DE 196 15 102 (Exhibit D 5; hereinafter: D 5) and US 6,524,477 B1 (Exhibit D 6; hereinafter: D 6). Otherwise, they referred to their previous statements made in connection with the (alleged) lack of inventive step with regard to claim 1. This does not lead to success. 173 D5 discloses a water purification device which comprises, inter alia, a filtrate container 1, a lower cartridge holder 2 with a second funnel neck 3 with a second cartridge 4 insertable in a detachable manner and with an intermediate chamber 5, an upper cartridge holder 6 with a first funnel neck 7 and a first cartridge 8 insertable into it, and an upper tank 9 with supply means 10. A ring support 36 is attached to a bottom 37 of the upper tank 9, which is open downwards in the form of a circular disc. At the top, the ring support 36 is connected to the bottom 37 up to an outlet opening 38.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 56 closed. The ring support 36 surrounds a valve tappet 39, which holds a valve cone 40 at the top and closes the outlet opening 38 in a [closed] position. A spring 41 biases the valve cone 40 into the closed position. A valve lever 42 can be rotated about a horizontal axis 43 so that clockwise rotation of the valve lever 42 causes the valve 39-41 to open. In this position, the valve lever 42 can be locked in place by locking means 44. By controlling the shut-off valve, the user can precisely determine the start of the filtration process, namely when he causes the raw water to flow down through the outlet opening into the upper cartridge holder by opening the shut-off valve. On the other hand, the user can operate the shut-off valve to close the outlet opening and remove the upper tank from the device even when it is still partially filled, for example to fill it completely under a tap or well outlet. This is illustrated below in Figures 3 to 5 of D 5. 174 Even if, in favour of the defendant, it were assumed that D 5 is a realistic starting point in the above sense, which in particular also shows a filter treatment cartridge as claimed, and furthermore, in favour of the defendant, it were assumed that the skilled person would have had a reason to consult D 6, and finally assuming that D 5 – as the defendants have argued with regard to claim 1 displays all the features of the claim except for features 5 and 3b, and that therefore only the disclosure of the application of a horizontal force component or the mobility of the valve's shut-off body in a horizontal direction is missing, the combination of D 5 with D 6 does not lead to the solution of claim 12 of the patent at issue. This is because, according to the defendant's own submission, D 6 does not disclose the aforementioned features either. Consequently, it is not apparent on the basis of which circumstances it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to provide a device with features 5 and 3b.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 57 II. 175 The claimant has filed an alternative application to amend the patent at issue and defends the patent at issue in the alternative with the alternative applications 1 to 16, including alternative applications 4A, 6A, 9A and 11A, submitted as annexes to the document of 28 February 2025, with the alternative applications being listed in numerical order. 1) 176 The alternative application for amendment of the patent is admissible. In particular, it is not late. 177 The application was included in the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, as required by Rule 30.1(a) RoP. The fact that it was not initially resubmitted or submitted separately in the workflow provided by the CMS is irrelevant in the present case. According to Rule 4.1 sentence 2 RoP, the parties are "required to use the official forms available online," which is why the workflows specifically provided for in the CMS must generally be used. This serves the purpose of inclusion in the electronically managed file, the assignment of the respective documents or applications, and, where applicable, ensuring "correct" handling by the law firm or the court or the continuation of a workflow, but is in principle only due to the current programming of the CMS. However, the technical implementation in the CMS cannot lead to stricter requirements under the Rules of Procedure and to documents being disregarded even though they have been submitted to the file in electronic form in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, in due form and in due time, and the opposing party has been made aware of them and has been able to comment on them without restriction. 2) 178 If the registered version of the patent at issue is invalid, even in part, the Claimant defends the patent at issue in the alternative, as it confirmed in the oral hearing upon request, solely in the versions of the total of twenty auxiliary requests in accordance with their numerical order. The auxiliary requests each contain closed sets of claims, which in turn contain the adjacent claims 1, 4, 12 and 15 (numbering according to the registered version) in a limited version. The Claimant therefore defends the patent at issue only to a limited extent in accordance with the respective sets of claims. Since the court must decide in accordance with the parties' applications pursuant to Art. 76(1) EPGÜ, there is no need to examine whether the subordinate claims of the patent at issue in the registered version are only partially invalid pursuant to Art. 65(3) EPGÜ and, if necessary, must be maintained in combination with uncontested (sub)claims. 179 The (alternative) defence of the patent at issue by means of the closed set of claims means that the patent at issue can only be upheld on the basis of such an alternative request in which each of the subordinate claims of the patent at issue is included in a grantable version. In the present case, this can only be stated for alternative request 16.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 58 3) 180 The patent at issue cannot be upheld with the set of claims according to auxiliary request 1. In any case, claim 1 in the version of this auxiliary request is not patentable. 181 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 (Annex AUX REQUEST 1) comprises, in addition to the features of granted claim 1, the features of granted claims 2 and 3, "... wherein the valve actuating device (60), when attached to the valve in the closed position (20) to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component, wherein the valve actuating device has at least one actuating element (61), wherein the actuating element (61) is pluggable." 182 It can be left open whether this amendment is inadmissible due to a violation of Article 84 EPC. Even if it were admissible, claim 1 in this version also lacks the necessary novelty. The presence of an actuating element of the valve actuating device, which is also pluggable, is also disclosed in D 1 by means of the mandrel 132 disclosed therein. 4) 183 The patent at issue cannot be maintained with the set of claims according to auxiliary request 2 either. Irrespective of all the disputed issues relating to claims 1 and 2 in the version of this auxiliary request (Annex AUX REQUEST 2), maintenance fails in any case because the auxiliary request, as claim 3, has the registered claim 4 as its subject matter without any changes. Claim 3 of auxiliary request 2 is therefore anticipated by D 2 in a manner that destroys novelty. 5) 184 The patent at issue cannot be upheld with the set of claims according to auxiliary request 3 either. In any case, this contains an unpatentable claim 2. 185 Claim 2 of auxiliary request 3 (Annex AUX REQUEST 3) is based on registered claim 4. The feature that "the shut-off body (24) is tilted by the action of a horizontal force component to release the valve seat (23) and thus to release the outlet opening (18)" has been added." 186 Notwithstanding the other disputed issues between the parties, it should be noted that D 2 not only discloses all the features of registered claim 4, but also the release of the outlet opening and the tilting of the shut-off body (see in particular Figure 3). Claim 2 of auxiliary request 3 is therefore not new. 6) 187 For the same reason, the patent at issue cannot be upheld with the set of claims according to auxiliary request 4 (Annex AUX REQUEST 4) or the set of claims according to auxiliary request 4A (Annex AUX REQUEST 4A). These sets of claims contain an unpatentable claim 3 and 2, respectively.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 59 188 The sets of claims contain – now as claim 3 and claim 2 – the registered claim 4 with the aforementioned additional feature that the shut-off body (24) is tilted by the action of a horizontal force component to release the valve seat (23) and thus to release the outlet opening (18). However, this claim is anticipated by D 2 in a manner that destroys novelty. 7) 189 The patent at issue cannot be upheld with the set of claims according to auxiliary request 5. In any case, the set of claims contains an unallowable claim 1. 190 Claim 1 of the auxiliary request 5 (Annex AUX REQUEST 5) is on a "Liquid treatment cartridge for a liquid treatment device (1), comprising a valve actuating device (60) arranged on the liquid treatment cartridge" and also includes the registered claims 2 and 3 as well as the additional feature that the shut-off body has an element protruding from the valve chamber. 191 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 5 is inadmissible. It contravenes Article 123(3) EPC. 192 According to Art. 123(3) EPC, a European patent may not be amended in such a way as to extend its scope. The scope of protection defines the extent of a patent in the event of enforcement of rights under the patent. The scope of protection of a European patent is determined in accordance with Article 69(1) EPC by the patent claims, which must be interpreted in conjunction with the description and drawings. The patent claims specify the subject matter of the patent, i.e. the technical teaching protected by the patent. The scope of protection and the subject matter of the patent are therefore not (necessarily) identical. 193 In order to determine whether an extension of the scope of protection can be assumed, it is first necessary to determine the scope of protection of the claim in the registered version. The scope of protection of the amended claim must then be determined and it must be asked whether the amended version extends the scope of protection to something that was not previously covered by the scope of protection in the registered version. In the present case, the latter is to be affirmed. The claimant's view that claim 1 of auxiliary request 5 merely constitutes a restriction of the registered claim 1 due to the arrangement requirement for the valve actuating device is not shared by the court. 194 The registered claim 1 is directed to a specific device. It contains only a technical teaching relating to a valve actuating device. The design and purpose of the valve actuating device – its suitability for interacting with a valve having the characteristics specified in claim 1 – are the subject matter of the claim, which does not say anything about whether the valve actuating device is ordered on another device and, if so, where. The order of the protected device is therefore not part of the technical teaching protected by the claim.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 60 195 A liquid treatment cartridge is a device that must be distinguished from the valve actuating device. The liquid treatment cartridge is not mentioned in the registered claim 1, which is why the claim does not contain any technical teaching for action in this respect. Specifications or features relating to a liquid treatment cartridge in any form are not included in the registered claim 1. Consequently, a combination of a valve actuating device with a liquid treatment cartridge or the order of the valve actuating device on the liquid treatment cartridge is also not the subject matter of the registered claim 1. 196 The scope of protection of registered claim 1 does not extend beyond what has been stated. Its starting point is the patent claim. It therefore does not cover a liquid treatment cartridge or a combination of a liquid treatment cartridge and a valve actuating device, nor does it cover the order of the valve actuating device on a liquid treatment cartridge. Nothing else can be inferred from paragraph [0017]. This paragraph describes that the valve actuating device can be arranged, for example, on the liquid treatment cartridge of a liquid treatment device. This embodiment corresponds to the variant separately protected in subclaim 13, with reference back to claim 12. This order is not covered by the scope of protection of claim 1. 197 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 6, on the other hand, claims not only the valve actuating device but also a fluid treatment cartridge. The inclusion of a second device which was not covered by the scope of protection of the registered claim 1 therefore constitutes not only the inclusion of an additional feature of the valve actuating device but also an extension of the scope of protection. The protection of claim 1 is not reduced, but extended to a further device. The fact that the device previously protected alone is covered by the second device and must be ordered on it does not alter this. 8) 198 The patent at issue is also invalid with regard to the claims according to auxiliary request 6 (Annex AUX REQUEST 6), auxiliary request 6A (Annex AUX REQUEST 6A) and auxiliary request 7 (Annex AUX REQUEST 7). These sets of claims contain an inadmissible claim 1. The respective claims 1, like claim 1 of auxiliary request 5, relate to a liquid treatment cartridge. This contravenes Article 123(3) EPC. Reference can be made to the previous statements. 9) 199 The patent at issue is not patentable with the set of claims according to auxiliary request 8 (Annex AUX REQUEST 8), nor with the set of claims of auxiliary request 9 (Annex AUX REQUEST 9), nor with the set of claims according to auxiliary request 9A (Annex AUX REQUEST 9A). In any case, the sets of claims contain an unallowable claim 2 and 3. Claim 2 of auxiliary request 8, claim 3 of auxiliary request 9 and claim 2 of auxiliary request 9A correspond to claim 2 of2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 61 auxiliary request 3. The above therefore applies. The aforementioned claims are prejudicial to novelty by virtue of D 2. 10) 200 The patent at issue is also not grantable with the set of claims according to auxiliary request 10 (Annex AUX REQUEST 10), according to auxiliary request 11 (Annex AUX REQUEST 11), according to auxiliary request 11A (Annex AUX REQUEST 11A) or according to auxiliary request 12 (Annex AUX REQUEST 12). The respective claims 1 of these sets of claims are inadmissible. 201 Claims 1 of auxiliary request 10 and of auxiliary requests 11 and 11A and of auxiliary request 12 differ in their wording from claim 1 of auxiliary request 5. They are not directed to a "liquid treatment cartridge for a liquid treatment device comprising a valve actuating device of a valve arranged on the liquid treatment cartridge," but rather to a "valve actuating device (60) of a valve (20), wherein the valve actuating device (60) is arranged on a liquid treatment cartridge (40) is arranged for a liquid treatment device". However, this different wording does not change the substance of the claim. The considerations set out in relation to claim 1 of auxiliary request 5 also apply here. The scope of protection of registered claim 1 has been impermissibly extended by claim 1 according to auxiliary requests 10, contrary to Article 123(3) EPC. Protection is granted to the combination of a liquid treatment cartridge and a valve actuating device. 11 202 The patent at issue cannot be upheld with the set of claims according to auxiliary request 13 (Annex AUX REQUEST 13) or according to auxiliary request 14 (Annex AUX REQUEST 14) either. These sets of claims contain, as claim 2 and claim 1 respectively, the registered claim 4 unchanged. As already explained, this is prejudicial to novelty by D 2. 12 203 Finally, the patent at issue is also not patentable with the claim set according to auxiliary request 15 (Annex AUX REQUEST 15). 204 Claim 1 of this auxiliary request is the registered claim 4 with the addition "that the shut-off body (24) is tilted by engaging a horizontal force component to release the valve seat (23) and thus to release the outlet opening (18)." It therefore corresponds to claim 2 of auxiliary request 3, which is why reference can be made to the above statements. The claim is not new in relation to D 2. 13) 205 The patent at issue is to be upheld to the extent of the set of claims according to auxiliary request 16 (Annex AUX REQUEST 16). The objections raised by the defendant are unfounded.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 62 a) 206 Auxiliary request 16 is admissible pursuant to Rule 30.2 of the RoP. The defendants were able to comment on this new auxiliary request in their rejoinder to the amendment request. They also made use of this opportunity. b) 207 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 16 corresponds to the registered claim 13, which refers back to claim 12, and additionally contains the feature that "the shut-off body is tilted by engaging the horizontal force component to release the valve seat and thus to release the outlet opening." In the amended version, claim 1 reads as follows: "Liquid treatment device with a liquid treatment cartridge (40) and with a liquid container (5), wherein the liquid container (5) has an outlet opening (18) and a valve (20) arranged in the outlet opening (18), characterised in that that the valve (20) comprises a movable shut-off body (24) and a valve seat (23), wherein the shut-off body (24) is trapped in a valve chamber (36) and is movable in the valve chamber (36) in a horizontal and vertical direction, that the valve (20) is in the closed position when the liquid container (5) is installed in the liquid treatment device (1), and that a valve actuating device (60) is arranged on the fluid treatment cartridge, which, when attached to the valve (20) in the closed position, (20) in the closed position, to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component in such a way that the shut-off body (24) is tilted by engaging the horizontal force component to release the valve seat (23) and thus to release the outlet opening (18)." aa) 208 The defendant's objection that the inclusion of the additional feature constitutes a violation of Article 84 EPC and Article 123(2) EPC is unsuccessful. 209 Any amendment to the patent at issue must satisfy the requirements of Article 84 EPC. Under Article 65(2) EPC, the court may only revoke a patent in whole or in part on the grounds specified in Articles 138(1) and 139(2) EPC, so that lack of clarity is not a ground for revocation as it is not listed in the exhaustive list of grounds for revocation. Consequently, the features of a patent claim contained in the granted version do not have to be reviewed under Article 84 EPC. However, this does not mean that an amendment to a claim cannot be reviewed in this respect. On the contrary, Rule 30.1(b) RoP explicitly requires that an application for amendment of the patent must include, inter alia, an explanation of why the amendment complies with the requirements of Article 84 EPC. It must therefore be examined whether the amendment introduces a lack of clarity (see Central Chamber Paris, UPC CFI 309/2023, decision of 5 November 2024 on Rule 50.2 RoP).2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 63 210 In the present case, the defendant's objection in this regard is unfounded. The requirements of Art. 84 EPC are met. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 16 specifies the subject-matter for which protection is sought. It is clear and concise and supported by the description. The inclusion of the feature "that the shut-off body (24) is tilted by the horizontal force component to release the valve seat (23) and thus to release the outlet opening (18)" does not give rise to any concerns. This does not result in any lack of clarity. The feature relates to the effect of the valve actuating device on the valve. This is clear. 211 The additional feature also does not lead to an inadmissible extension pursuant to Art. 123(2) EPC. The feature is disclosed in the patent application (Annex ES 10) on page 3, lines 16 ff., 22 ff. bb) 212 Nor is there an inadmissible extension under Art. 123(2) EPC insofar as claim 1 of auxiliary request 16 refers to valve actuation by a horizontal force component without requiring the shut-off body to have an eccentric lever with a cam surface. To avoid repetition, reference is made to the relevant comments on registered claim 1. cc) 213 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 16 is also based on an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC. Even if it were assumed that D 6 was a realistic starting point and that the skilled person would have had an incentive to refer to JP H08-258895 (Annex D 7, German translation Annex D 7a), the combination of D 6 and D 7 would not lead to the solution of claim 1 of auxiliary request 16. It is not apparent that the combination would have suggested to the skilled person to provide a valve actuating device which is designed to open the valve by exerting a horizontal force component when attached to the valve in the closed position. D 6 does not provide any indication in this regard (para. 174). Nor does D 7. When the valve of D 7 is opened, only vertical forces are exerted. The flat receiving portion (receiving portion 12) of the tray (water receiving tray 11) strikes (from below) the flat end (22b) of the receiving portion (receiving portion 12), thereby exerting a vertical force. This force is counteracted (from above) by the force of the spring (24), which presses the valve shaft (22) downwards at its flat end (22b). This is also (only) a vertical force. Nevertheless, this causes the valve (23) or the valve element (21) to tilt due to the protruding portion (25) at the lower end portion of the valve shaft (22). This generates a torque that causes the tilting. The application of a horizontal force component when attaching a valve actuating device is not shown or suggested.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 64 c) 214 Claim 10 of auxiliary request 16 is admissible. Its admissibility is not precluded by the fact that claim 10 corresponds to the registered claim 15 and that the defendant did not challenge it in their counterclaim for annulment. 215 However, the defendant rightly point out that, pursuant to Article 76(1) EPGÜ, the court is bound by the parties' applications and may not grant more than what has been claimed. This also applies to a counterclaim for invalidity. The subject matter of the counterclaim is determined by the applications of the counterclaimant for invalidity, Article 43 EPGÜ. If the counterclaimant for invalidity only challenges a patent in part, the court is not allowed to deal with the unchallenged part. The subject matter of the dispute determined by the plaintiff for invalidity cannot be changed or extended by the counterclaimant for invalidity, not even by means of a (subsidiary) application for amendment of the patent. A patent can only be defended by a defendant in an action for revocation to the extent that it is challenged by the counterclaimant. In the absence of a subject matter in dispute, self-limitation with regard to unchallenged claims is not permitted. 216 Claim 10 of the auxiliary request does not constitute a limitation of an uncontested registered claim. Rather, claim 10 corresponds to the registered claim 15. Any different numbering is irrelevant. The replacement of the words "12 to 14" by "previous" and the deletion of "with a filter cartridge" are also harmless. These are merely editorial changes made as a result of the reworded previous claims in the set of claims and serve to avoid duplication. These linguistic changes have no significance in terms of content. D. Merits of the action 217 The action for infringement is partially well founded. I. 218 Insofar as the claimant or the parties refer in part to several contested embodiments, it should be clarified that only one embodiment is at issue. 219 According to Article 43 EPGÜ, the parties determine the subject matter of the proceedings. In the case of an infringement action, the subject matter of the dispute is determined by the plaintiff by means of the applications set out in the statement of claim and the facts presented in support of those applications (Rule 13(1)(g), (k), (l) and (n) RoP). The (actual) facts of the case presented by the claimant, together with the relief sought, specify the legal consequences sought. Accordingly, the facts from which the actions of the defendant are to be derived, which are to be qualified as an infringement of the patent at issue, are relevant for determining the subject matter of a patent infringement action (Rule 13(1)(l) RoP). These facts typically include, first and foremost, the actual design of a specific product or process with regard to the features of the asserted patent claim, which is referred to as the contested embodiment.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 65 220 Even if the mention of a product name, an order number, a model name or similar may contribute to the identification of an contested embodiment, which is why it is generally advisable to reproduce these in a statement of claim, the contested embodiment is not determined solely by the designation, name or number. As explained above, what is decisive is the actual design of the contested product in relation to the features of the patent at issue. It is therefore necessary to present the facts in this respect. A different actual design of a product that is relevant in view of the features of the patent at issue therefore leads to different embodiments. This is the case even if the different designs are manufactured, offered and/or distributed under the same designation. 221 On this basis, only one embodiment is the subject of these proceedings. Even if the claimant identifies filter cartridges of the Philips brand with different designations as infringing, it asserts the same actual configuration with regard to the features of the asserted patent claims. II. 222 No direct patent infringement pursuant to Art. 25 EPGÜ of claim 1 in the version to be upheld in auxiliary request 16 can be established. The contested embodiment is undisputedly not a liquid treatment device with a liquid container. III. 223 However, the contested embodiment indirectly infringes claim 1 of auxiliary request 16 within the meaning of Article 26(1) EPC. 224 According to Article 26(1) EPC, a patent shall confer on its proprietor the right to prevent third parties, without his consent, in the territory of the Contracting Member States in which the patent has effect, from to persons other than those entitled to use the patented invention, means which are essential to the invention, if the third party knows or should have known that these means are suitable and intended for use in the invention. Indirect patent infringement therefore requires the existence of objective and subjective elements. 1) 225 The objective conditions are met in the present case. a) 226 The contested embodiment is objectively suitable for use in the invention according to claim 1 as maintained in auxiliary request 16. It is designed in such a way that direct use of the protected teaching with all its features is possible by the person supplied. When the of the contested embodiment is inserted into the liquid funnel of the2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 66 water caraffes of the Claimant, a horizontal force is exerted on the "PerfectFit" valve by means of the semi-circular protrusion on the underside of the filter cartridge in such a way that the shut-off body of the valve is tilted horizontally and water can flow through the outlet opening. This can be seen in the photographs reproduced in para. 14 et seq. and in Annexes MB 14 and MB 15. Furthermore, this is undisputed between the parties. 227 The contested embodiment is also a means that relates to an essential element of the invention protected by the patent. This is assumed to be the case if the means is capable of interacting functionally with one or more features of the patent claim in realising the protected inventive concept. What constitutes an essential element of the invention in this sense must be determined on the basis of the subject matter of the invention. Since the patent claim is decisive for determining which subject matter is protected by the patent, all features specified in the patent claim are generally essential elements of the invention. This applies regardless of whether they are contained in the preamble or in the characterising part of the patent claim. In particular, it is irrelevant whether they relate to the "core" of the invention or whether the essential element of the invention distinguishes the subject matter of the patent claim from the prior art. 228 In the present case, the liquid treatment cartridge is mentioned in claim 1 in accordance with auxiliary request 16. There are no indications that it should nevertheless be regarded as an essential element by way of exception. On the contrary, the liquid treatment cartridge does not play a completely subordinate role in the context of the protected invention. It alone is responsible for treating the liquid within the liquid treatment device and thus fulfils the purpose of the treatment device, namely the treatment or filtration of the liquid filled into the device. Furthermore, the valve actuating device is arranged on it in accordance with the claim, which causes the valve equipped in accordance with the claim to open by exerting a horizontal force component. This force component causes the shut-off body of the valve to tilt, allowing the filtered liquid to flow. If the valve actuating device is not attached to the valve, the valve is in the closed position, which prevents the flow of liquid. Because the valve actuating device is in the order on the liquid treatment cartridge, this opening is performed "automatically" by the valve actuating device when the cartridge is inserted into the liquid treatment device. 229 The defendant offers the contested embodiment in Austria, Germany, France and Italy and also supplies it for use in the territories of the aforementioned contracting member states. The double territorial connection required by Article 26(1) EPGÜ is therefore established. 230 The defendants offer and also supply the contested embodiment to persons who are not entitled to use the patented invention. Insofar as the recipients of the offer and purchasers of the contested embodiment are private end users who, pursuant to Article 27a EPGÜ, are privileged and cannot themselves be held liable for patent infringement on the basis of this privilege, this does not preclude this. This privilege does not extend to2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 67 third parties. According to the legal fiction of Article 26(3) EPGÜ, private end users are expressly not considered to be entitled to use the invention within the meaning of paragraph 1. b) 231 Those supplied by the defendants are not entitled to use the invention protected by claim 1 in accordance with auxiliary request 16. The defendants' objection of exhaustion pursuant to Art. 29 EPGÜ does not apply. aa) 232 According to Article 29 EPC, the rights conferred by the European patent do not extend to acts relating to a product protected by the patent after the product has been placed on the market in the European Union by the patent proprietor or with his consent. The right conferred on the patent proprietor by the patent is therefore limited to the Community if these conditions are met. The lawful acquirer of a product placed on the market by the patent proprietor or with his consent is entitled to use it for its intended purpose, to sell it to third parties or to offer it to third parties for one of these purposes. 233 Since the concept of exhaustion is expressly regulated in Article 29 of the UPC Agreement, there is no need to refer to the national law of the contracting Member States. Rather, the conditions for exhaustion must be developed independently and autonomously by the EPG itself. The private opinions submitted by the parties on the legal situation in Austria, France and Italy are therefore not decisive, nor is the legal situation in Germany as presented by the parties. The parties themselves agree on this. However, the private opinions submitted and the legal situation described in Germany show that the concept of exhaustion is implemented in each of the four legal systems mentioned and that there is fundamental agreement on the starting points with regard to the questions at issue here. Despite different terminology, the same conditions are essentially examined in terms of content. 234 The proper use of a patent-protected product also includes the normal maintenance and restoration of its usability if the functionality or performance of the specific product is impaired or eliminated in whole or in part due to wear and tear, damage or other reasons. However, intended use does not include any measures that result in the reproduction of a product covered by a patent. The patent holder's exclusive right to manufacture is not exhausted when a copy of the product covered by the patent is placed on the market for the first time. 235 If a part is replaced or substituted in a product protected by a patent, it must therefore be examined whether this replacement or substitution constitutes permissible use in accordance with the intended purpose or whether it constitutes an impermissible new manufacture of the product protected by the patent. The decisive factor here is whether the replacement or substitution preserves the identity of the specific product protected by the patent already placed on the market2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 68 or whether it creates a new product that is in accordance with the invention. This is assessed on the basis of a weighing of the interests worthy of protection of the patent holder in the economic exploitation of the invention on the one hand and the interests of the purchaser in the unhindered use of the specific product in accordance with the invention placed on the market on the other hand, taking into account the unique nature of the product protected by the patent. 236 One factor to consider in this assessment is whether the replacement or substitution of the part in question is normally to be expected during the product's lifetime and whether the public or the purchasers can therefore legitimately expect to be able to continue using the product purchased with the replacement part or to use it multiple times. If this is the case, it can generally be assumed that this is a normal maintenance measure and therefore a permissible use of the patent-protected product placed on the market. However, the situation is different in exceptional cases where the technical effects of the invention are reflected precisely in the replaced part. In such cases, the replacement of the part results in the technical and economic advantages of the invention being realised again and the identity of the patent-protected product originally placed on the market is lost. bb) 237 On this basis, no exhaustion has occurred in the present case. 238 The Claimant does sell water filter systems consisting of a water carafe and filter cartridge in some Member States of the European Union, whereby, for example, the system with the designation "Style" contains, in addition to a water carafe with the "PerfectFit" valve system, a MAXTRA PRO ALL-IN-1 filter cartridge (Exhibit ES 3). The filter cartridge of the water filter system must also be replaced as intended during the service life of the system. According to the unanimous submission of the parties, the filter cartridge is a wearing part or consumable item that is normally and regularly expected to be replaced. The public and the purchasers therefore have a legitimate expectation that they will be able to use the water filter system multiple times or continue to use it by replacing the filter cartridge. 239 In accordance with the principles set out above, it could therefore be assumed that this is a normal and therefore permissible maintenance measure, unless the technical effects of the technical teaching of claim 1 in the version of the auxiliary request are apparent in the replaced (wear) part. Ultimately, however, this question does not need to be clarified. The assumption of exhaustion fails because the filter cartridge offered and distributed by the Claimant does not itself have the features of a filter cartridge according to claim 1 as amended by auxiliary request 16. 240 Claim 1 according to auxiliary request 16 requires that the shut-off body of the valve, by engaging with the horizontal force component (when the valve actuating device is attached to the valve in the closed position), tilts to release the valve seat and thus to release the outlet opening. However, the latter cannot be established. The underside of the2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 69 As can be seen in paragraph 10, the filter cartridge offered and sold has a sleeve on the underside, on the inner wall of which two inclined guide elements are arranged in an order. When the filter cartridge is inserted into the water carafe, the sleeve surrounds the shut-off body of the "PerfectFit" system in order to cause the guide elements to engage with corresponding grooves in the shut-off body. This engagement forces the shut-off body to rotate, causing the shut-off body of the "PerfectFit" system to slide over the sloping surfaces at the bottom of the valve (highlighted in green in the schematic drawing of the shut-off body shown above) and be lifted from the valve seat. Tilting therefore does not occur; this is prevented by the sleeve. The valve actuating device on the MAXTRA+ filter cartridge is not designed to actuate the valve by tilting the shut-off body. 241 The defendant's assertion that the valve is tilted as soon as the sleeve with the guide elements comes into contact with the valve is unsuccessful. This assertion is based on the assumption that the filter cartridge is not inserted completely straight into the water jug. In the present context, however, which concerns the question of exhaustion, only the proper and complete insertion of the filter cartridge into the water funnel is relevant. Only to this extent did the Claimant place the water filter system on the market with its consent. 2) 242 The subjective elements of indirect patent infringement are present. The contested embodiment is intended for use of the invention in the aforementioned Member States. In this respect, too, there is a double territorial connection. Furthermore, the defendants knew that the products they offered and supplied were suitable and intended for use of the invention. Both the intended use on the part of the recipients of the offer or the purchasers at the time of the offer or delivery and the subjective knowledge of the defendant are apparent in the present case from the recommendations for use on the packaging of the contested embodiment. The compatibility of the contested embodiment with the Claimant's water filter systems is expressly stated and advertised on the various packaging. IV. Legal consequences 243 The patent infringement found justifies the legal consequences explained below. 1) 244 Taking into account the circumstances of the case, pursuant to Art. 26 EPGÜ in conjunction with Art. 63(1) EPGÜ, to prohibit the defendants from continuing to infringe the patent at issue in the version of claim 1 in accordance with auxiliary request 16 (claim B.I.2). However, an unrestricted injunction is not an option in the present case, even though there is a higher probability that the contested embodiment will be used in accordance with the invention.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 70 245 If the contested embodiment can also be used without a patent, as in this case, only a limited prohibition is justified, which ensures that, on the one hand, commercial transactions involving the contested object outside the scope of the property right remain unaffected and, on the other hand, the direct patent-infringing use by the customer is excluded with sufficient certainty. Suitable measures for this purpose include, in principle, warnings to customers not to act without the consent of the property right holder in accordance with the patent, as well as a contractual cease-and- desist agreement with the customer, which may be linked to the payment of a contractual penalty to the property right holder in the event of a breach of the cease- and-desist agreement. The precautionary measures to be taken by the supplier or provider of a product that can be used in a manner that infringes a patent or is patent- free are determined after weighing all the circumstances of the individual case. In doing so, it must be taken into account that the measures must be suitable and sufficient to prevent patent infringements with sufficient certainty, on the one hand, and must not unreasonably impede the distribution of the product for patent-free use, on the other hand. a) 246 In the present case, warnings such as those set out in the order below are appropriate and sufficient. aa) 247 The contested embodiment is offered to commercial customers and delivered to them, who then distribute it further. This is evidenced in particular by the test purchases carried out by the Claimant. These were made via online platforms, whereby the platform operators did not merely act as service providers or intermediaries, but, as evidenced by the invoices submitted to the file (e.g. Annexes MB 10), acted as sellers. 248 With regard to commercial customers, a warning notice as requested by the Claimant must be issued. It is appropriate and sufficient to prevent further infringements of the patent at issue with sufficient certainty. Commercial customers, who are expected to be aware of the intellectual property rights situation, will already be keen to avoid patent infringement in their own interests. If they are informed in an offer addressed to them that they may not "use" the contested embodiment without the consent of the Claimant as the proprietor of the patent at issue – which in this case clearly means offering and supplying for the purpose of using the invention – they will refrain from further distribution of the contested embodiment or obtain the consent of the Claimant. No indications that could lead to a different conclusion have been presented or are otherwise apparent. 249 It has not been argued or is otherwise apparent that the use of this warning notice is unreasonable for the defendant.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 71 bb) 250 The contested embodiment is also offered to private end users. As a rule, they do not have any knowledge of patent law. For reasons of comprehensibility and, consequently, for reasons of effectiveness and function of a warning notice, a different wording than that used for commercial users is therefore required. The notice requested by the claimant, stating that the contested embodiment is "not for use in liquid containers of the "BRITA" brand with "PerfectFit" is understandable and clear to private end users. If a private end user takes note of this information, they know what they should and should not do. In particular, they also know which of the Claimant's devices are involved. They can easily identify them on the basis of the valve system mentioned, which the Claimant also advertises. The reasons why the contested embodiment is not suitable for use are irrelevant to them and do not require further explanation. 251 Insofar as the claimant also wishes to include in the warning notice that the contested embodiment cannot replace the liquid treatment cartridges of the "BRITA" trademark, this cannot be complied with. This addition is (technically) inaccurate. Nor is it necessary because the warning that the contested embodiment is not suitable for use in the liquid containers of the "BRITA" trademark sufficiently prevents private end users from purchasing the contested embodiment in order to use it in the claimed systems. 252 In order for private end users to be able to read and take note of the warning notice, it must be expressly and clearly visible in every offer made to private end users. 253 It can generally be assumed that private end users will observe warning notices. No circumstances have been presented which could indicate that this is not the case here. Nor has it been argued that the defendants would be unreasonably affected by the affixing of such a warning notice. b) 254 However, the contractual penalty requested in the event of delivery to commercial customers is not to be imposed. 255 The imposition of the requested obligation to obtain a written cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause in favour of the Claimant is, due to the foreseeable reactions of (potential) commercial customers, economically equivalent to an unrestricted ban on the distribution of the contested embodiment. This would require special justification, which is not apparent in the present case. The claimant has not substantiated that and why a warning notice would be insufficient to prevent further direct infringements in the specific circumstances of the individual case and that the risk of patent-infringing use of the contested embodiment cannot be countered without a contractual penalty. The necessity of a contractual penalty is not apparent.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 72 256 The comment that the managing director of the first and second defendants would of course ignore his own warning notice is nothing more than a blanket assertion. 257 Insofar as the Claimant argues that the use of the contested embodiment is obviously intended – due to the explicit advertising on the packaging – for use in accordance with the patent with the Claimant's water carafes, it is precisely this advertising that is removed by means of the warning notice, and the offer to commercial customers also contains a separate warning notice. Apart from that, the defendants have argued that the contested embodiment fits into a large number of other water carafes with oval filter inserts available on the market, as is also indicated in part on the packaging of the contested embodiment. The claimant has not specifically countered this argument. 258 The Claimant's argument that, due to the outstanding reputation and popularity of the Claimant's products, patent infringement would be almost inevitable if the contested embodiment were to be resold is also unfounded. This cannot be attributed to the defendants. Pursuant to Article 26 EPGÜ, they are only liable if, at the time of sale of the contested cartridges, they knew or should have known that the purchasers would use the cartridges in accordance with the patent. However, the warning notice (on the packaging, among other places) expressly and clearly states that the contested design is not to be used in the products mentioned by the Claimant. Furthermore, there are other water carafes on the market other than those of the Claimant. 259 Furthermore, the appropriateness of the amount of the contractual penalty claimed has not been demonstrated. The Claimant's submission in this regard is general. According to the defendant's uncontested submission, the contested embodiment is sold (to private end consumers) for approximately €5 per unit. The minimum contractual penalty of €1,000 claimed by the Claimant is disproportionate because it is 200 times this price. It is not clear why this should be justified. 3) 260 The defendants are also obliged to provide the claimant with information and to render account (claim B.II., B.III.1). 261 The obligation to provide information arises from Article 67 EPGÜ. The information is necessary for calculating and assessing the method by which damages will be claimed. In this context, the claimant may also request the submission of supporting documents, namely invoices or, if these are not available, delivery notes. The Claimant has a legitimate interest in being able to verify the accuracy of the information on a random basis (Local Division Düsseldorf, UPC CFI 7/2023, decision of 3 July 2024; Local Division Düsseldorf, UPC CFI 16/2024, decision of 14 January 2025; Local Division Mannheim, UPC CFI 210/2023, decision of 22 November 2024).2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 73 262 The requested auditor's reservation allows for an appropriate balance between the injured party's interest in accurate information and the infringer's legitimate interests in confidentiality. Since the auditor may only act to the extent specified in the decision and is also bound to maintain confidentiality vis-à-vis the injured party, the selection may also be made by the Claimant (Local Division Mannheim UPC CFI 210/2023, decision of 22 November 2024; Local division Düsseldorf, UPC CFI 16/2024, decision of 14 January 2025) 263 The court understands application B III.2 to mean that no application for disclosure of the books pursuant to Art. 68 EPGÜ in conjunction with R. 131.1 c), R. 141 RoP is being made – such an application would have to be rejected at the stage of the infringement proceedings – but that this application is for the presentation of accounts with supporting documents. Only this corresponds to a reasonable assessment of the application (see also Local Division Mannheim UPC CFI 210/2023, decision of 22 November 2024; Local Division Düsseldorf, UPC CFI 16/2024, decision of 14 January 2025) and also appears in the (unsuccessful) wording of the application. 264 According to Article 68(3)(a) and (b) EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 191(1) alternative 2 RoP, the defendants must already provide information in the infringement proceedings which the claimant needs in order to be able to verify the accuracy of the information and obtain evidence for its calculation of damages. This also includes the submission of evidence. 265 The information rights provided for in the EPGÜ, as laid down in particular in Article 67 EPGÜ and Article 68(3)(a) and (b) EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 191(1) Alt. 2 RoP, also apply to the periods prior to the entry into force of the EPGÜ (Local Division Mannheim, UPC CFI 162/2024, decision of 11 March 2025; Local Division Düsseldorf, UPC CFI 50/2024, decision of 10 April 2025). 4) 266 The determination of the award of damages on the merits is based on Article 26 in conjunction with Article 68(1) EPGÜ (claim B.IV.). The defendants should have recognised, with due care, that their actions infringed the patent at issue. 5) 267 The threat of a penalty payment for failure to comply (Art. 63(2) EPGÜ) does not raise any concerns from the point of view of proportionality. The basis for the threat of periodic penalty payments with regard to the provision of information and accounts is Art. 82(1) and (4) EPGÜ and Rule 354.3 RoP. The "up to ..." requested by the claimant with regard to the amount of the periodic penalty payment provides the necessary flexibility to take into account the circumstances of the individual case, including the conduct of the infringer, in the event of a possible infringement and, on that basis, to be able to set an appropriate penalty payment in accordance with Art. 82(4) sentence 2 EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 354.4 RoP. 6) 268 Application B. V. is admissible. In particular, it is neither late nor vague pursuant to Rule 263 of the RoP. However, the application for a declaratory judgment is unfounded on the merits.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 74 269 Pursuant to Article 64(1) EPC, the court may, on the application of a plaintiff, issue an order that appropriate measures be taken in respect of products which, according to the findings of the court, infringe a patent and, where appropriate, in respect of materials and equipment which are mainly used for the creation or manufacture of those products. Pursuant to Article 64(2) a) EPGÜ, the determination of patent infringement. The EPG can therefore not only determine the non-infringement of a patent in the context of a negative declaratory action pursuant to Art. 32(1) b) EPGÜ. Rather, it also has the power to positively determine patent infringement. 270 However, Article 64 EPGÜ does not apply to indirect patent infringement. The subject matter of indirect patent infringement pursuant to Article 26 EPGÜ is a means. This does not in itself fulfil all the characteristics of a patent claim, which is why it is not, as such, a product for which patent infringement can be established. Only on the basis of the specific act of use and in conjunction with other means, etc., can the claim be fully realised, so that a patent infringement can then be established. In view of this threat to the patent, the offering and supplying of the means is prohibited; the risk should not be realised and the patent infringement should be prevented. The patent-free use of the means, on the other hand, is (still) permissible. 271 This does not conflict with the powers of the court or the consequences that may be imposed under Articles 63, 67 and 68 EPC in the case of indirect patent infringement under Article 26 EPC. Articles 63, 67 and 68 EPGÜ are worded differently from Article 64 EPGÜ. They do not refer to a product that infringes a patent, but to "patent infringement" or "infringer". These provisions therefore refer to the act or the person committing the act. Indirect patent infringement and indirect infringers can easily be subsumed under these terms. The different wording suggests that the term "patent- infringing product" was deliberately used in Article 64 EPGÜ and that the remedies available under Article 64 EPGÜ only apply to that extent. 272 This is consistent with the fact that the measures listed (non-exhaustively) in Article 64 EPGÜ are not appropriate per se due to the possible patent-free use of the product pursuant to Article 26 EPGÜ. V. 273 The decision on costs is based on Article 69(2) EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 118(5) of the RoP. VI. 274 Pursuant to Art. 82(2) EPGÜ, R. 118(8) sentence 2 RoP, the court may make any order or measure subject to a security to be determined by it. 275 The order of security for enforcement is therefore at the discretion of the court. The interests of the patent proprietor in the effective enforcement of its property right must be weighed against the interests in the effective enforcement2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 75 possible claims for damages in the event of a subsequent annulment of the decision (Appeal Court, UPC CoA 365/2025, order of 21 May 2025; local division Düsseldorf; UPC CFI 50/2024, decision of 10 April 2025). 276 A case-by-case assessment is therefore always necessary. Factors to be taken into account when deciding whether to order security include the financial situation of the claimant, which may give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible claim for damages cannot be enforced and/or enforced, or only with disproportionate effort, in the event of the first-instance decision being set aside or amended. The relevant facts and arguments must be presented by the defendant, who bears the burden of proof in this regard. If such an argument has been made, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to substantiate these facts and reasons, especially since he generally has knowledge and evidence of his financial situation. It is also the plaintiff's responsibility to explain, if necessary, why, despite the reasons put forward by the defendant, his interest in enforcing his property right without security prevails (Appeal Court, UPC CoA 365/2025, order of 21 May 2025; Local division Düsseldorf; UPC CFI 50/2024, decision of 10 April 2025) 277 The defendants have not presented any reasons that would justify making enforcement in the present case contingent upon the provision of security. The court therefore refrains from ordering such security for enforcement. VII. 278 The claimant has uncontested submitted a value in dispute of €1,000,000.00 for the infringement proceedings. There is no indication that this value in dispute is understated. The value in dispute of the nullity proceedings is therefore, in accordance with point 2(b)(2) (ii) of the Administrative Committee's Directive on the determination of court fees and the upper limit for reimbursable costs of 24 April 2023. . According to this provision, the value in dispute of a counterclaim for annulment in the absence of relevant information generally corresponds to the value of the infringement action plus 50%. DECISION: A. I. European patent 2 387 547 B 1 is declared invalid with effect for the territory of the Contracting Member States in which the patent has effect, in so far as its claims extend beyond the following version: 1. Liquid treatment device with a liquid treatment cartridge (40) and a liquid container (5), wherein the liquid container (5) has an outlet opening (18) and a valve (20) arranged in the outlet opening (18), characterised in that the valve (20) comprises a movable shut-off body (24) and a valve seat (23), wherein the shut-off body (24) is trapped in2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 76 a valve chamber (36) and is movable in the valve chamber (36) in a horizontal and vertical direction, that the valve (20) is in the closed position when the liquid container (5) is installed in the liquid treatment device (1), and that a liquid inlet opening (19) is provided on the liquid treatment cartridge a valve actuating device (60) is arranged in the order that, when attached to the valve (20) in the closed position (20) to open the valve (20) by exerting a horizontal force component, such that the shut-off body (24) is tilted by engaging the horizontal force component to release the valve seat (23) and thus to release the outlet opening (18). 2. Liquid treatment device according to claim 1, characterised in that the shut-off body (24) has an element (29) protruding from the valve chamber (36). 3. Liquid treatment device according to claim 2, characterised in that the element (29) is an eccentrically arranged lever (30). 4. Liquid treatment device according to claim 3, characterised in that the lever (30) has a cam surface (32). 5. Liquid treatment device according to claim 3 or 4, 5, wherein the shut-off body (24) has a longitudinal axis (33), characterised in that the lever (30) extends from the cam surface (32) to the longitudinal axis (33) or beyond. 6. Liquid treatment device according to one of claims 3 to 5, 10, characterised in that the lever (30) extends vertically upwards from the shut-off body (24). 7. Liquid treatment device according to one of claims 1 to 6, characterised in that the valve chamber (36) is bounded downwards by the valve seat (23) and upwards by a locking disc (34). 8. Liquid treatment device according to claim 7, characterised in that the valve seat (23) is formed by a valve seat body (22), wherein the valve seat body (22) delimiting the valve chamber (36) downwards and laterally and the blocking disc (34) delimiting the valve chamber (36) upwards, wherein in particular the blocking disc (34) has a slot. 9. Liquid treatment device according to one of the preceding claims, characterised in that the valve actuating device (60) is an annular element (62) or consists of a finger ring.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 77 10. Use of a liquid treatment device according to one of the preceding claims for filtering water, wherein the liquid treatment device is a liquid filter device. II. In all other respects, the counterclaim for annulment is dismissed. B. I. The defendants are prohibited from 1. in Austria and/or Germany and/or France and/or Italy, liquid treatment cartridges with a valve actuating device, which on the liquid treatment cartridge in order to be offered and/or supplied if they are suitable for use in in a fluid treatment device with a fluid treatment cartridge and a fluid container, wherein the fluid container has an outlet opening and a valve arranged in the outlet opening, characterised in that the valve comprises a movable shut-off body and a valve seat, wherein the shut-off body is trapped in a valve chamber and is movable in the valve chamber in a horizontal and vertical direction, in that the valve is in the closed position when the liquid container is installed in the liquid treatment device, and that a valve actuating device is arranged on the liquid treatment cartridge, which, when attached to the valve in the closed position, is designed to open the valve by exerting a horizontal force component, such that the shut-off body is tilted by engaging the horizontal force component to release the valve seat and thus to release the outlet opening, without − in the case of offers to commercial customers, expressly and clearly indicating that these liquid treatment cartridges may not be used in a liquid treatment device with the above-mentioned features without the consent of the Claimant as the owner of EP 2 387 547 B1; − in addition, expressly and conspicuously indicate that the liquid treatment cartridges are not intended for use in liquid containers of the "BRITA" brand with "PerfectFit" are suitable.2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 78 II. The defendants are ordered 1. to provide the claimant, in an orderly list – insofar as the relevant data is available to the defendant – in electronic form, information on the extent to which they have committed the acts described in section B.I since 23 May 2019, specifying: a) the individual deliveries, broken down by delivery quantities, -delivery times, prices and type designations, as well as the names and addresses of the recipients, b) the individual offers, broken down by offer quantities, times, prices and type designations, as well as the names and addresses of the commercial recipients of the offers, c) the advertising carried out, broken down by advertising media, circulation figures, distribution period and distribution area, and in the case of Internet advertising, the Internet addresses, the placement periods and the number of hits, d) the production costs broken down by individual cost factors and the profit achieved, whereby the list containing the accounting data must be submitted in an electronic form that can be evaluated by means of EDP, The defendants reserve the right to disclose the names and addresses of non-commercial customers and recipients of offers to a certified auditor based in the Federal Republic of Germany, designated by the claimant and bound to maintain confidentiality, instead of to the claimant, provided that the defendants bear the costs thereof and authorise and oblige the auditor to inform the claimant, upon specific request, whether a particular purchaser or recipient of the offer is included in the list; 2. the claimant, in a list structured by calendar month and by patent- infringing product, starting on 23 May 2019, to provide information on the products referred to in B.I., namely a) the origin and distribution channels of the products, b) the quantities delivered, received or ordered and the prices paid for the infringing products, c) the identity of all third parties involved in the manufacture or distribution of the infringing products, whereby the following documents must be provided for each month of a calendar year from 23 May 2019 onwards to verify the information provided under 2. and for each patent- infringing product in2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 79 electronic form that can be evaluated using a computer: invoices or, if these are not available, delivery notes for the individual deliveries, broken down by the names and addresses of the commercial recipients of the sales offers for all products sold or otherwise disposed of. III. It is hereby established that the defendants are obliged to compensate the Claimant for all damages incurred or to be incurred by it as a result of the actions specified in B. I. from 23 May 2019 onwards. IV. In the event of any breach of the orders under B. I. and B II., the defendants shall pay a penalty of up to €250,000.00 to the court. V. In all other respects, the action is dismissed. C. The costs of the action for infringement shall be borne by the claimant in the amount of 50% and by the defendants in the amount of 50%. The defendants shall bear 10% of the costs of the action for annulment and the claimant shall bear 90%. D. The value in dispute of the action is set at 1,000,000.00€ . The value in dispute of the counterclaim for annulment is set at 1,500,000.00€ . E. The orders under B. I. to B. II. shall only be enforceable after the claimant has informed the court which part of the orders it intends to enforce and has submitted a certified translation of the orders into the official language of the Member State of the Member State in which enforcement is to take place, and after the defendants have been served with the notification and the (respective) certified translation. Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß Legally qualified judge Dr. Daniel Voß Legally qualified judge Mojca Mlakar Technically qualified judge Dr Marc van der Burg2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 80 For the Deputy-Registrar INFORMATION ON THE APPEAL Any party that has been unsuccessful in whole or in part in its applications may appeal against this decision within two months of its delivery to the Court of Appeal (Art. 73(1) EPGÜ, R. 220.1(a), 224.1(a) RoP). INFORMATION ON ENFORCEMENT A certified copy of the enforceable decision shall be issued by the Deputy-Registrar at the application of the party seeking enforcement, R. 69 RegR. The decision was announced in open court on 22 August 2025. Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß2025-08-22 LD Munich UPC CFI 248-2024 ACT 29522-2024 ORD 69429-2024 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com

Key Holdings

• Purpose statements in a device claim generally define a device's suitability for the function and purpose specified in the patent claim.
• For novelty checks (Art. 54 EPC) of device claims with a purpose, relevance is usually limited to whether prior art shows a device with all spatial and physical features, unless the prior art device is unsuitable or requires modification for the intended use.
• Exhaustion of rights (Art. 29 EPGÜ) entitles a lawful acquirer to use a product for its intended purpose, including normal maintenance, but not reproduction of the patented product.
• Determining whether replacing a part constitutes permissible use or a new product involves balancing the patent holder's economic exploitation interests against the purchaser's right to unimpeded use of the specific product.
• If an indirectly infringing embodiment (Art. 26 EPGÜ) can also be used without patent protection, only a limited prohibition is justified, ensuring non-infringing commercial transactions are unaffected and direct infringing use is excluded.

Tags

• Auxiliary Requests
• Claim Construction
• Direct Infringement
• Exhaustion
• Indirect Infringement
• Infringement
• Patent Validity
• Unified Patent Court

Related Cases

• UPC_CFI_743/2025 – Skechers v Fast IP
• UPC_CFI_804/2025 – TP Link (USA) v Huawei (China)
• UPC_CFI_119/2025; UPC_CFI_401/2025 – Shanghai v Longi
• UPC CFI 425/2024, UPC CFI 751/2024 – JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. et al.
• UPC_CFI_771/2025; UPC_CFI_802/2025 – Solvay v Zhejiang