EPLAW PATENT BLOG

NL – Basic Holdings v. Ruby Decor

Posted: June 21st, 2016

* Now including an English translation of the judgment *

Basic Holdings ULC v. Ruby Decor B.V., Aparto B.V., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 4 May 2016, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2016:4657, with thanks to Alexander Tsoutsanis, DLA Piper (NL) for sending in the English translation

Basic Holdings, part of the Glen Dimplex Group, is proprietor of EP 2 029 941 B1 for an ‘Artificial Fireplace’. Ruby Decor is a former customer of the Glen Dimplex Group and producer of (amongst other things) various artificial fireoplaces. Basic Holdings accuses Ruby Decor of patent infringement. Ruby Decor denies infringement and states that Basic Holding’s patent is invalid. The Judge in PI proceedings rules that in his preliminary opinion Ruby Decor did not sufficiently motivate why the patent would be invalid due to lack of inventive step. Moreover, the patent is found to be infringed.

A copy of the judgment (in Dutch) can be found here.
A copy of the judgment (in English) can be found here.

Leave a Reply