Vakman Interieur Concepten B.V. v. DDW Group International, PI Proceedings, District Court The Hague, 26 March 2025, Case no. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:5121
Preliminary injunction concerning a European patent relating to stair panels. Interpretation of patent claims. Article 69 EPC. Equivalence. The PI judge grants the injunction.
Vakman Interieur Concepten (‘VIC’) holds EP 765, entitled ‘A panel and a method for manufacturing same’. The patent relates to a panel, particularly suitable for stair coverings, comprising a rigid base with V-shaped grooves and a flexible top layer allowing for 90-degree bending without compromising wear resistance.
DDW operates under the name Topstairs and manufactures and sells stair panels using laminate planks with U-shaped grooves, which VIC alleges infringe the patent.
Urgency
The court rejected DDW’s argument that VIC lacked urgency in bringing the case, finding that VIC had credibly denied being aware of the alleged infringement before 2024. The mere possibility that VIC could have known about DDW’s activities via online publications or DDW’s presence at the Interieur Collectie Dagen (InCoDa) trade fair did not establish actual knowledge of the infringing product’s composition. Although VIC sent its first cease-and-desist letter on 28 May 2024 and announced preliminary relief proceedings on 18 September 2024, the action was only formally initiated on 4 December 2024. However, part of the delay was due to extension requests from DDW, and the three-month preparation period following the announcement of the injunction request was not considered unreasonable by the court.
Validity
DDW ‘raised concerns’ about EP 765, but it had expressly not contested the validity of the patent, nor had it invoked the nullity of the Dutch part of EP 765. Therefore, the preliminary relief judge assumed the validity of the patent as established in the proceedings.
Infringement
DDW contested the infringement.
In this regard, DDW raised several arguments comparing its products and manufacturing process with those of VIC. The preliminary relief judge disregarded these arguments, as they are not relevant to determining whether DDW has infringed the patent. DDW overlooked the fact that the allegedly infringing panels must be compared to the features of the patent, not to an embodiment thereof.
Similarly, the court disregarded DDW’s argument that it is important to know who supplied the base material to DDW or who owns it. It is established that DDW processes this base material. Through this processing, a panel is created that, according to VIC, meets the features of EP 765. DDW offers these processed stair panels for sale, an act reserved exclusively for the patent holder.
Furthermore, DDW argued that the patent does not relate to stair panels, and therefore its panels should not fall within its scope. This defense was rejected, as both the drawings and the description of EP 765 explicitly mention its application to stair panels.
DDW then disputed that the groove it applies to the base material is the V-shaped groove mentioned in feature 1.3 of the patent. DDW uses a router to create a U-shaped groove, as it stated during the hearing. Whether, from the perspective of the skilled person, the V-shaped groove in the patent literally includes a U-shaped groove is left open for now, as the U-shaped groove used by DDW is, in any case, equivalent to the V-shaped groove, as VIC alternatively argued.
“The only difference in DDW’s product is a slightly wider groove than the patent discloses. DDW addresses the same problem as the patent and does so in substantially the same way. The fact that DDW fills the wider groove with a hardening material does not change this. The result of DDW’s method is also a folded panel made from inflexible material with a compressible layer and a wear-resistant layer, where the top layer can be bent without becoming susceptible to rapid wear. For the legal certainty of third parties, it is not required to apply a stricter standard.”
DDW’s argument that its embodiment is an inventive improvement over VIC’s embodiment or the patent itself also fails. Even if DDW produces a panel that offers advantages over the invention in the patent, as demonstrated by the claims read in conjunction with the description and drawings, its embodiment can still fall within the scope of the patent’s protection.
Finally, DDW raised a so-called “Gillette defense.” This defense failed because DDW has not in any way made clear, nor supported with evidence, what it considers to be the state of the art on the priority date. Nor has DDW provided any substantiation regarding the knowledge of the average skilled person as of that priority date. As such, it remains unclear from DDW’s argument whether and how it applies the state of the art as it existed on the priority date.
The foregoing led the preliminary relief judge to the provisional conclusion that DDW infringes EP 765. An injunction was granted.
A copy of the decision (in Dutch) can be read here.
