Case: bellissa HAAS v. Windhager — Local Division Mannheim, 12 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_338/2024)
The Mannheim Local Division has handed down a detailed decision confirming that the supply of all components of a patented product can amount to direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA – even if the components are delivered unassembled. The court also held that the sale of a single component may constitute direct infringement when it is obvious that the component is intended to complete a patented assembly.
The claimant, bellissa HAAS GmbH, sued Windhager GmbH and its managing directors for infringement of EP 2 223 589, which protects a metal edging system for garden beds. The patent covers edging strips that can be joined by interlocking tongues and slots and are designed to be assembled on site without additional tools or parts.
Windhager marketed “Rasen- und Gestaltungskanten” (lawn and design edging) through its Austrian website and allegedly supplied products to customers in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg. bellissa sought pan-European relief including injunctions, recall, destruction, information and damages. Windhager counterclaimed for revocation of the patent in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step.
The Local Division Mannheim upheld the patent and found infringement. It reasoned that the patented edging system is deliberately designed for simple on-site assembly. Offering or delivering all components of such a system therefore constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA, even when the parts are sold separately and only assembled by the customer.
The court further held that the sale of a single edging strip may also amount to direct infringement when the possibility of assembling additional identical strips into the patented product is either advertised or self-evident.
Jurisdiction was accepted for acts committed in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg, and the court granted pan-territorial relief covering these states. The counterclaim for revocation failed because none of the cited prior-art documents disclosed the claimed combination, and the invention involved an inventive step.
The claims against the two managing directors were dismissed since mere corporate office does not establish personal liability under the UPCA without proof of individual participation.
