TRUMPF Laser v IPG Laser (UPC_CFI_733/2024, UPC_CFI_255/2025)

• TRUMPF is the proprietor of a patent relating to a method and arrangement for generating a laser beam with varying beam profile characteristics using a multi-clad fibre. TRUMPF brought an infringement claim against IPG, which filed a revocation counterclaim.
• The Düsseldorf LD found that IPG directly infringed claim 2 and indirectly infringed claim 1 of the patent. Notably, in respect of indirect infringement of claim 1, the contested embodiment was specifically advertised as being for the purpose of carrying out the method claimed in claim 1 and therefore IPG was aware that the contested embodiment was suitable and intended for use in connection with the invention. The infringing products were fibre lasers from IPG’s “YLS-AMB” series, also referred to as “dual-beam lasers”.
• The counterclaim for revocation, which challenged claims 1 to 3 on grounds of novelty and inventive step, was dismissed in its entirety.
• On claim interpretation, the court rejected IPG’s argument for a restrictive interpretation of the patent.
• In considering inventive step, the court applied the framework set out by the Court of Appeal in Meril v Edwards and Amgen v Sanofi, which requires identification of the objective technical problem from the perspective of the skilled person. The court held that the objective purpose of the patent was to provide a method for generating a laser beam with different beam profile characteristics. Starting from two different realistic starting points, no lack of inventive step was found. The court ruled out two other documents as realistic starting points for the inventive step analysis.
• The court granted an injunction for both direct and indirect infringement. However, it confirmed that remedies like recall, removal from trade and destruction are reserved for products that are the “subject-matter of the patent” and thus are confined to situations of direct infringe.
• Under Rule 119 RoP, the court awarded TRUMPF €115,000 as provisional damages. It also awarded €115,000 as provisional reimbursement of costs under Rule 150.2 RoP.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.

‍