LD Düsseldorf on indirect infringement: Absolute injunction does not automatically justify corrective measures (UPC_CFI_316/2024; UPC_CFI_547/2024)

In M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v. Altech Makina, the LD Düsseldorf drew a clear distinction between the availability of an injunction and the availability of corrective measures such as recall, removal from the channels of commerce, and destruction in cases of indirect patent infringement.

The LD Düsseldorf held that such corrective measures are generally not available for products which only give rise to a claim of indirect patent infringement. The LD Düsseldorf also held that those products are not themselves the “subject-matter of the patent”. Although, in the case at hand, the Court found that accused products of the Defendant could only be used in a patent-infringing way and thus found that an absolute prohibition (“Schlechthinverbot”) was justified, the Court held that this does not automatically open the door to recall, removal, or destruction of products. It emphasized that the accused products can be marketed lawfully in patent-free foreign markets. 

This decision is consistent with the UPC’s earlier case law. In Ortovox v. Mammut (UPC_CFI_16/2024), the LD Düsseldorf found that products giving rise only to a claim of indirect infringement are generally not subject to recall or removal (page 36, second paragraph). This reasoning was developed even further in Brita v. AQUASHIELD (UPC_CFI_248/2024), where the LD Munich expressly held that Art. 64 UPCA does not apply to indirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA (margin no. 270). By contrast, the Court held that Arts. 63, 67 and 68 UPCA remain applicable to indirect infringement because those provisions refer to “infringement” or the “infringer”, rather than to an “product found to be infringing a patent”, as recited in Art. 64 UPCA. 

The UPC’s case law is also in line with the German case law. It was found in previous decisions that recall of products is generally unavailable against a mere indirect infringer (Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf - 2 U 41/17; Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf - 2 U 71/16). For the corrective measure of destruction, the German Federal Court of Justice clarified that since the possession of products that indirectly infringe a patent, and offering or delivery of such items in areas outside the scope of the German Patent Act and for purposes other than the use of the invention is not prohibited, the Patentee cannot demand that products possessed by the indirect infringer be destroyed (FCJ, decision of November 22, 2005 - X ZR 79/04 (“extracoronales Geschiebe”)). Although the commentary literature recognizes exceptions in cases of an absolute prohibition (“Schlechthinverbot”), a claim for destruction is nevertheless precluded where the infringer also offers the indirectly patent-infringing product for use in patent-free country and also delivers it there (Regional Court Munich - 7 O 15350/19).