Judicial Findings and Systemic Lessons from a SEP Infringement Case
In a landmark series of decisions, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) tackled an infringement case involving a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) – European Patent EP 2 867 997 B1 held by Koninklijke Philips N.V.
The litigation, which pitted Philips against several companies in the Belkin group, centered on wireless charging technology covered by the widely adopted Qi standard.
The dispute serves as a foundational test case for how the UPC interprets SEPs, determines infringement, allocates liability, and enforces compliance through penalties..
Claim Interpretation and Infringement
A central issue was the scope of claim 20 of EP 2 867 997 B1, which describes a wireless charging transmitter that, among other things, acknowledges a receiver’s request to enter a “negotiation phase.” The claim specifies that this acknowledgement is “indicative of an acceptance or rejection” of the request.
Referring to UPC’s Munich Local Division decision of 13 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_390/2023), Belkin argued that its devices, which always accept such requests and do not send a “reject” signal, could not fall within the scope of the claim requiring “that a patent-compliant service sender sends a confirmation in response to the request, whereby either an acceptance or a rejection can be declared with this confirmation.”
The UPC’s Munich Local Division rejected this argument.
The judges began by outlining the applicable legal framework: interpretation must begin with the claims themselves but must also take into account the description and drawings, as per Article 69(1) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and the associated Protocol on Interpretation.
The court summarized this as follows in its decision UPC_CFI_390/2023:
“According to Art. 69(1) EPC, the scope of protection of a patent is determined by the patent claims. In order for this determination to be made, the technical meaning to be attributed to the wording of the patent claim from the point of view of a person skilled in the art must first be determined, taking into account the description and drawings.”
Crucially, the court emphasized in said decision that when multiple embodiments are described as patent-compliant, the claim must be interpreted to include them unless the wording clearly excludes them:
“If several embodiments are presented in the description as being in accordance with the invention, the terms used in the patent claim are, in case of doubt, to be understood in such a way that all embodiments can be used to fulfil them.”
The court then turned to paragraph [0046] of the patent description, which it found to disclose an embodiment in which the transmitter always accepts requests to enter the negotiation phase. It held that this was indeed a valid, claimed embodiment:
“From the point of view of the local division, paragraph [0046] thus describes a constellation in which a declaration of acceptance is always sent to the power receiver as a confirmation of the power sender in response to a corresponding request, thereby enabling entry into the negotiation phase.”
Accordingly, the judges concluded that: “From a technical point of view, in view of the declared objective of the patent in suit (enabling entry into a negotiation phase), it cannot be justified in the view of the local division that a patent-compliant performance transmitter must also be able to reject a request to enter the negotiation phase.”
The goal of the patent, the court noted, was to enable—not prevent—negotiation, and therefore an “always accept” configuration remains compliant. This shows how the UPC approached claim interpretation using a purposive, technically-informed reading, balancing protection for the patent proprietor with clarity for third parties — precisely the aim of the Article 69 EPC Protocol.
This is also a deliberate departure from a narrower interpretation previously adopted by the Düsseldorf Regional Court (case no. 4a O 49/22). Indeed, before the introduction of the Unified Patent Court system, infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 867 997 B1 had already been brought before the German national courts.
In that context, the Düsseldorf Regional Court was asked to interpret claim 20 of the patent in view of Belkin’s Qi-compliant wireless chargers and construed the claim to require a power transmitter capable of sending either an acceptance or a rejection of the negotiation request. In particular, the Düsseldorf Regional court found that paragraph [0046] of the patent did not support the view that it would be sufficient for the transmitter to only send an acceptance.
In its decision UPC_CFI_390/2023, the Munich Local Division explicitly referenced the German decision and came to a different conclusion. The Munich Local Division interpreted the claim in light of the embodiments disclosed in the patent and consistent with Art. 69 EPC, embracing a construction aligned with the patent’s stated goal: enabling negotiation phases in wireless power transfer systems.
Regarding the territorial implications of the earlier German judgment, the UPC decision confirms that acts committed within Germany were excluded from the infringement finding. Thus, while the UPC diverged substantively from the Düsseldorf Regional court’s view, it respected procedural finality for Germany, highlighting both the limits and the reach of pan-European enforcement under the new UPC system.
Extending Liability to Directors
A second major issue was the extent of liability. The Munich Local Division imposed injunctive relief not only on Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, and Belkin International Inc., but also on three individual directors. While these directors were not found to be direct infringers, the court held them liable as intermediaries under Article 63(1) UPCA.
According to the ruling, the directors “provided services which led to the infringement of the patent in suit” and were therefore in a position to prevent the infringing activity (UPC_CFI_390/2023). This expansive interpretation of intermediary liability marked one of the most debated aspects of the decision.
The Appeal: Interim Injunctions Against Individuals Suspended
Belkin quickly appealed. In a decision dated 29 October 2024 (UPC_CoA_549/2024), the UPC Court of Appeal suspended the injunction as it applied to the individual directors. The appellate judges found a manifest legal error in the lower court’s interpretation, clarifying that :
“A managing director of a patent infringing company represents this company. This company cannot therefore be a “third party” in relation to this managing director within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA and Art. 11 of Directive 2004/48. Therefore, liability under Art. 63 para. 1 sentence 2 UPCA as an intermediary cannot arise solely from the function as managing director of a patent infringing company.”
The court reaffirmed that injunctive relief may only target individuals when their personal actions go beyond corporate governance roles.
Penalty Phase: Enforcing Procedural Compliance
Meanwhile, enforcement proceedings continued. Philips accused Belkin of delayed and incomplete compliance with the order to provide sales and pricing data necessary to calculate damages. The Munich Local Division initially imposed a penalty payment of €46,000. On appeal, however, the amount was reduced to €42,000. The Court of Appeal clarified in its 30 May 2025 decision (UPC_CoA_845/2024 and UPC_CoA_50/2025) that while Belkin had indeed breached its obligation, the compliance window was deemed to have begun later than Philips claimed.
“Belkin could only reasonably be expected to fulfil the obligation to provide information by 6 November 2024,” the court ruled.
Beyond the amount, the appellate court articulated broader principles on UPC enforcement. It held that the obligation to disclose includes manufacturer prices and that the UPC has authority to impose penalties with both coercive and punitive aims. As stated in the decision:
“Providing the information on 24 December 2024 does not remove the obligation to pay a penalty for the period through 17 December 2024. Since penalty payments not only serve a coercive function but also have a punitive nature, their imposition is justified even where the defendant has, in the meantime, complied with the obligation to provide information as ordered.”
Conclusion
Taken together, the Philips v. Belkin case affirms that the UPC will interpret patent claims with functional flexibility, will entertain expansive theories of indirect liability—subject to appellate scrutiny—and will rigorously enforce procedural orders with monetary sanctions.
Looking ahead, the litigation is not over. Philips has initiated further infringement actions before the UPC against Belkin involving other patents in the same family, including EP 2 372 863 (UPC_CFI_5/2023) and EP 2 628 233 (UPC_CFI_62/2023).
As these cases unfold, they may further shape the contours of SEP enforcement, especially in connection with technology standards like Qi. For now, the Philips v. Belkin decisions provide a foundational map for navigating the new terrain of UPC litigation.
November 2025
Contributing author
Baudin Pierre
Partner | European Patent Attorney
