1
København — Lokal Afdeling
UPC _CFl_492/2024
ACT_47484/2024
ORD_59411/2024
Kendelse
Afsagt af den fælles patentdomstols lokale afdeling i
København den 19. december 2024 vedrørende EP 4 238
202 B1
Kendelsen omhandler europæisk patent nr. 4 238 202 B1 og vedrører, om domstolens kendelse ex
parte om bevissikring af 26. august 2024 skal stadfæstes eller ophæves helt eller delvist i henhold
til UPC-aftalens artikel 60, stk. 6.
Headnotes
Keywords
Rekvisiti:
HGSystem ApS
(advokat Allan Christensen og europæisk patentagent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
HGSystem Holding ApS
(advokat Allan Christensen og europæisk patentagent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
Infotech Concept ApS
(advokat Allan Christensen og europæisk patentagent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
Infotech Holding ApS
(advokat Allan Christensen og europæisk patentagent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
2
(advokat Allan Christensen og europæisk patentagent Jacob Meyland)
(samlet “rekvisiti”)
Rekvirent:
Hybridgenerator ApS
Nørrevang 15 Nørre Lyndelse 5792 Årslev, Danmark
(advokat Mikkel Kleis og patentagent Lasse Rosenlund Lauridsen)
Det omstridte patent
Europæisk patent nr. 4 238 202 B1
Dommer
Kendelsen er afsagt af en enkelt juridisk dommer, retsformand Peter Agergaard, i henhold til
procesreglementets regel 194, stk. 3.
Processprog
Dansk
Sagens genstand
Den lokale afdeling i København afsagde i overensstemmelse med rekvirentens anmodning af 16.
august 2024 kendelse om bevissikring ex parte den 26. august 2024.
Domstolens kendelse blev fuldbyrdet af Fogedretten i Svendborg, Danmark, den 30. august 2024.
Rekvisiti anmodede den 30. september 2024 om revurdering af kendelsen i henhold til
procesreglementets regel 197, stk. 3.
Særligt grundet problemer med udlevering af passwords mv. kunne rapporten for undersøgelsen fra
Domstolens uvildige IT-ekspert først færdiggøres efter, at rekvisiti anmodede om
revurdering af kendelsen.
På denne baggrund skete der ikke udlevering af rapporten, inden spørgsmålet om revurdering af
kendelsen skulle hovedforhandles.
Der er i forbindelse med anmodningen om revurdering blevet fremlagt nye bilag, herunder
skriftlige vidneerklæringer, ligesom parterne har indgivet nye processkrifter.
Dato for hovedforhandling
Efter aftale med parterne fastsatte domstolen i første omgang tidspunktet for hovedforhandling til
den 31. oktober 2024 kl.09.30-15.30.
3
Efter anmodning fra rekvirenten blev hovedforhandlingen efterfølgende omberammet til den 28. november 2024.
Der blev i overensstemmelse hermed ved den lokale afdeling i København afholdt hovedforhandling den 28. november 2024 i henhold til procesreglementets regel 197, stk. 4, hvor domstolen meddelte, at der ville blive afsagt kendelse den 19. december 2024 kl. 10.
Påstande
Rekvisiti har nedlagt følgende påstande:
Rekvisiti anmoder i medfør af UPC-aftalens artikel 60, stk. 6, og procesreglementets regel 197, stk. 4, om at domstolens kendelse af 16. august 2024 i medfør af UPC-aftalens artikel 60, stk. 1 og 2, og procesreglementets regel 196,
1) principalt ophæves,
2) subsidiært ændres i overensstemmelse med det nedenfor anførte.
Rekvisiti anmoder desuden, jf. procesreglementets regel 197, stk. 4, sidste punktum, om, at domstolen forpligter de personer, som har fået kendskab til fortrolige oplysninger, til at holde disse oplysninger fortrolige samt at pålægge tvangsbøder for tilfælde af misligholdelse.
Rekvirenten har nedlagt følgende påstande:
Principalt, domstolens kendelse af 26. august 2024 opretholdes.
Subsidiært, domstolens kendelse af 26. august 2024 kan ændres i nærmere bestemt omfang.
4
Skriftlige vidneerklæringer
Skriftlig vidneerklæring af 29. oktober 2024 fra
5
6
Bilag 66: Skriftlig vidneerklæring af 8. november 2024 fra
7
8
9
10
11
Bilag V: Skriftlig vidneerklæring af 15. november 2024 fra
12
13
Parternes processkrifter
Rekvisitis processkrift af 30. september 2024:
”…
D SUPPLERENDE SAGSFREMSTILLING OG ANBRINGENDER
1 Om de af Hybridgenerator fremlagte beviser
1.1 Aktiviteter relateret til det norske selskab
Hybridgenerator har med anmodningen om bevissikring fremlagt en lang række af bilag. En meget
stor del af bilagene er udskrifter af opslag på Facebook og LinkedIn. Fælles for en lang række af bilagene er,
at de ikke har nogen relevans for de forhold, som denne sag omhandler.
Bilagene omhandler således blandt andet handlinger i Norge. havde netop for Norge en
konkret aftale om, at han kunne drive konkurrerende forretning med Hybridgenerator efter ophøret af deres
samarbejde. Som det er oplyst i Hybridgenerators egen sagsfremstilling skete dette blandt andet ved, at
Hybridgenerator og indgik en aftale om, at
Hybridgenerators norske selskab (‘Hybridgenerator AS’ som nu har ændret navn til ‘HGSystem AS’). Det
norske selskab er ikke involveret i nærværende sag. Langt størstedelen af de fremlagte udskrifter fra sociale
medier er imidlertid relateret til netop det norske selskab. Domstolen bedes af den årsag se bort fra disse
bilag.
Det bemærkes i øvrigt, at EP 4 238 202 B1 (“Stridspatentet”) ikke er valideret i Norge, og at Stridspatentet
således – uanset bemærkningerne nedenfor hvor det gøres gældende, at Stridspatentet ikke er gyldigt, og at
Stridsprodukterne ikke udviser alle kravselementer af Stridspatentets krav 1 – ikke lægger nogen
begrænsninger på rekvisiti i relation til handlinger mv. i Norge. Domstolen har da heller ikke nogen
kompetence til at vurdere handlinger foretaget i Norge.
1.2 Forsøg på at miskreditere
Flere af bilagene har desuden alene til formål at tegne et ukorrekt billede af/miskreditere
Der kan blandt andet peges på bilag 37, som er et opslag på Facebook med en video, der viser en makulator.
har lagt videoen op med teksten: “Kontorarbejde igen, her er så vist min nummer et favorit
kontor maskine. Den får altså noget ud af ehh hænderne.” efterfulgt af en smiley. I kommentarsporet har en
person skrevet: “slette alle spor” efterfulgt af en smiley. I bilaget er det anonymiseret, hvem der har skrevet
kommentaren, hvilket giver det indtryk, at det skulle være selv, hvilket imidlertid ikke er
tilfældet. Heller ikke i bevissikringsanmodningen er dette præciseret, på trods af, at Hybridgenerator aktivt
har slettet oplysningerne om, at det ikke er som har skrevet kommentaren. Bilaget kan
derfor kun have et formål, nemlig at miskreditere hvilket domstolen bedes se bort fra.
14
1.3 Hybridgenerators kravsmatrice
Desuden viser de mange bilag ikke noget sted tilstedeværelsen af samtlige kravselementer i Stridspatentets
krav 1. Bilagene udgøres af en lang række af eksempler på, at HGSystem sælger hybridgeneratorer, men ikke
bevis for, at hver af Stridsprodukterne (MPU 1000, MPU 2000 og MPU 3000) udviser alle kravselementer.
Det eneste bevis, som er forsøgt ført til støtte for Hybridgenerators påstand om krænkelse er således den
kravsmatrice, som indgår i anmodningen på side 13-15. Det bemærkes, at kravsmatricen er
Hybridgenerators eget partsindlæg og ikke et reelt bevis for krænkelse. Kravsmatricen indeholder – som det
vil blive vist nedenfor – en række fejl, ligesom den ikke redegør for, at alle kravselementer udvises af alle
Stridsprodukterne. Kravsmatricen henviser således kun tilfældigt til fire ‘referencer’, som “dokumentation”
for, at alle kravselementer skulle udvises af Stridsprodukterne. Tre af de fire referencer er opslag på sociale
medier. Af disse tre angiver de to ikke, at de skulle vedrøre Stridsprodukterne, og det sidste af de tre
vedrører kun ét af Stridsprodukterne – nemlig modellen MPU 1000 series.
For et af elementerne er det i kravsmatricen angivet, at trækket er til stede i Stridsprodukterne (altså både
MPU 1000, MPU 2000 og MPU 3000), men hvor det i beskrivelsen er anført, at der ifølge reference 2 leveres
“24 kVA AC out”, og at MPU 1000 leverer 24 kVA vekselstrøm. Reference 2 henviser således kun til MPU
1000, og der er end ikke forsøgt ført bevis for, hvordan det forholder sig for de øvrige Stridsprodukter.
Videre baserer flere elementer i kravsmatricen sig på Hybridgenerators rene spekulationer. Det kan
blandt andet fremhæves, at der anvendes formuleringer som ‘det er overvejende sandsynligt’, om
beskrivelsen af tilstedeværelsen af et kravselement, idet en anden løsning efter Hybridgenerators opfattelse
vil være ‘kompliceret’. Et andet argument i kravsmatricen baseres på, at
Det er på den baggrund Hybridgenerators konklusion, at det er ‘overvejende
sandsynligt’, at løsningen er taget med over i nye selskaber. Uden konkrete holdepunkter for
den konklusion, så var det måske mere oplagt med en konklusion, at
netop er bekendt med løsningen i Stridspatentet, og derfor har haft alle muligheder og i
øvrigt evnerne til at udvikle en løsning, som ikke falder ind under Stridspatentets beskyttelsesomfang.
Det bemærkes, at Hybridgenerator har bevisbyrden for, at Stridspatentet er blevet krænket eller vil
blive krænket, og at der til støtte herfor, jf. UPC-aftalen artikel 60, stk. 1, skal fremføres et rimeligt
tilgængeligt bevismateriale. Allerede på baggrund af ovenstående kan det konstateres, at der ikke er ført
noget bevis for krænkelse, og allerede af den årsag skal domstolens kendelse af 16. august 2024 afsagt i
medfør af UPC-aftalens artikel 60, stk. 1 og 2, og procesreglementets regel 196, ophæves, jf. UPC-aftalens
artikel 60, stk. 6, og procesreglementets regel 197, stk. 4.
2 Stridspatentets prioritet
Stridspatentet er udstedt 14. august 2024. Stridspatentet blev indleveret 28. oktober 2021 med
ansøgningsnummer 21802306.7 (“Patentansøgningen”) og kræver prioritet fra europæisk patentansøgning
20204351 (“Prioritetsansøgningen”) indleveret 28. oktober 2020.
I forbindelse med indlevering af Patentansøgningen blev der foretaget en række ændringer i
ansøgningsteksten, hvorved dette tilføjede indhold har en effektiv indleveringsdato på Stridspatentets
15
indleveringsdato 28. oktober 2021, mens det indhold, som er at finde i Prioritetsansøgningen, har en effektiv indleveringsdato på prioritetsdatoen 28. oktober 2020 (splittet prioritet). Dermed er der baggrund for, at offentliggørelser i perioden 28. oktober 2020 og frem til 28. oktober 2021 kan være relevante for vurderingen af Stridspatentets gyldighed.
For nemheds skyld er der dog i det følgende kun fokuseret på offentlig tilgængelig viden før prioritetsdatoen 28. oktober 2020, idet rekvisiti dog udtrykkeligt forbeholder sig retten til på et senere tidspunkt at påberåbe sig offentliggørelser i perioden 28. oktober 2020 og frem til 28. oktober 2021 til støtte for sit anbringende om, at Stridspatentet ikke er gyldigt.
3 Ingen formodning for gyldighed
Det faktum, at der ved Hybridgenerators anlæggelse af nærværende sag, den 16. august 2024, ikke
var blevet anlagt indsigelsessager mod patentet ved EPO, kan ikke bruges som indikation for gyldighed, dels fordi en manglende indsigelse aldrig vil kunne sidestilles med en anerkendelse af gyldigheden, men derudover også at Stridspatentet blot er udstedt to dage forinden, og at indsigelsesfristen først udløber 14. maj 2025.
4 Stridspatentet er ugyldigt
4.1 Stridspatentet opfylder ikke kravet om nyhed, jf. artikel 52(1) og 54(2) EPC
Som det vil blive klart i det følgende, er Stridspatentet udstedt med et omfang, som omfatter Hybridgenerators egne produkter, som er solgt og markedsført, herunder omtalt og beskrevet offentligt, forud for indleveringsdatoen på Prioritetsansøgningen den 28. oktober 2020. Stridspatentet er derfor ugyldigt, da det ikke opfylder kravet om nyhed, jf. artikel 52(1) og 54(2) EPC.
I følgende fremlægges Bilag A1-D1, som alle viser offentlig tilgængelig information fra før Stridspatentets prioritetsdato 28. oktober 2020.
Bilag A1 og A2 er udskrifter af http://hybridgenerator.dk/ i 2016, hvoraf det fremgår af Bilag A1,
at man i april 2016 tilbød “Hybrid Generator Systemer”, hvor der blandt andet forklares: “In our
hybrid generators, the diesel engine is always kept inside ideal running conditions at 50 to 95% of
its power rating.” Hybridgenerator blev på dette tidspunkt drevet af Infotech Concept ApS, som fik
registreret binavnet Hybridgenerator ApS den 18. maj 2015.
Bilag B1-B3 er udskrifter af rekvirentens hjemmeside https://hybridgenerator.eu/, til hvilken
adressen http://hybridgenerator.dk/ (som nævnt i bilag A1 og A2) henviser til i dag.
Af Bilag B1 er vist et billede af en hybridgenerator af 9. august 2020 og desuden beskrevet:
“We are innovative and dedicated and have had only one focus from the start. Our
materials, chassis and design – from day one everything has been created for one purpose: to build the world’s best mobile hybrid generator!”
16
og videre at fordelene ved Hybridgenerators produkter bl.a. tæller:
“Far better power quality, as our engine operates at the same load constantly. Where
other hybrid solutions often only deal with off-peak and low load periods, our products handle everything
from the hybrid module”.
Af Bilag B2 fremgår det, at der er tale om et “LTO battery system” og under “Operation modes”
fremgår det, at “Load is isolated from motor. Perfect sinus power, as the grid.” Det fremgår desuden, at der
er tale om en trailerbaseret løsning: “Trailer based solution offers ease of on-site logistics, removing the
requirement for lifting equipment”.
Bilag C1 angår en YouTube video fra en online konference (“3rd International Conference on Small
and Medium Wind Energy”) den 27.-30. april 2020, hvor
Hybridgenerator, præsenterer Hybridgenerators hybridgeneratorer og deres brug i vindmølleindustrien.
Som det fremgår af Bilag C2, er videoen offentliggjort på YouTube den 4. juni 2020.
I videoen i bilag C1 fortæller at konventionelle hybridgeneratorer på daværende tidspunkt
var baseret på en dieselgenerator, som skulle kunne håndtere den varierende belastning. Omvendt har
rekvirenten vendt konceptet på hovedet og i stedet set på hvordan batteriet kan dimensioneres for at kunne
håndtere spidsbelastninger m.m., og baseret her på hvilken størrelse motor der da var nødvendig for at
genoplade batteriet ved nominel belastning (jf. 04:00-05:00).
Videre fortæller (jf. 11:20-11:40) i videoen, at, særligt af hensyn til vægten, ønskes en motor,
som er dimensioneret væsentlig lavere (eksempelvis kun en tredjedel), end hvad den skulle være for at
håndtere spidsbelastninger, og at den kun skal dække den nominelle belastning. Resten klares af
batterierne, som dermed fungerer som en buffer. I videoen opsummerer (jf. 11:55-12:05), at
motoren derfor isoleres fra belastningen og motoren bruges udelukkende til at lade batteriet. Det
understreges også senere i videoen (jf. 15:30-15:40), at hybridgeneratoren gør brug af et separat
opladningssystem og en separat inverter, som kører hele tiden, og at dette resulterer i et meget netlignende
output.
I videoen er der desuden information om, at der ønskes en motor der kører 1500 rpm (jf. 11:45-11:55), at
chassiset udføres i plastik (16:50-17:30), og at et Lithium-Titanate (LTO) batteri bruges (jf. 20:20-21:00). Der
er desuden vist flere billeder af den omtalte hybridgenerator (f.eks. 08:20-08:40 og 18:35-18:40) og nævnt
at hybridgeneratoren er mobil (jf. 05:40-05:50).
Bilag D1 er en artikel fra firmaet Victron Energy, som rapporterer omkring Hybridgenerators brug
af Victron invertere til hybridgeneratorer. Det er i artiklen bl.a. beskrevet:
“The result is a range of sophisticated Hybrid Generators that flips things on their head – by using
inverter power as the primary high power source, together with a smaller supplementary diesel
generator. In fact, in many units inverter power is all that is required.”
17
Som det kan ses af ovenstående gennemgang af bilag A1-D1, så blev Hybridgenerators egne hybridgeneratorer før prioritetsdatoen fremlagt offentligt til at have samme egenskaber som opfindelsen i Stridspatentet, navnlig at dieselgeneratoren altid kører ved optimal drift (jf. bilag A1: “In our hybrid generators, the diesel engine is always kept inside ideal running conditions” og bilag B1: “Far better power quality, as our engine operates at the same load constantly.”).
Nedenfor er i tabelform, på samme vis som angivet af Hybridgenerator i dennes sagsfremstilling (jf. anmodningen om bevissikring side 14-16), vist, at Hybridgenerators egne produkter før 28. oktober 2020 udviser alle træk i Stridspatentets krav 1 (kravsmatricen er desuden fremlagt som Bilag E).
Træk i krav 1 i Stridspatentet Hybridgenerators egen offentliggørelse forud for Stridspatentets prioritetsdato den 28. oktober 2020
A mobile hybrid generator system for providing grid-like AC power output to a load at off-grid locations,
Se fx Bilag C1 ved 5:40-5:50 (hybridgeneratoren er mobil) og 15:30-15:40 (netlignende output). Både ved 12:40-12:50 og ved 20:00-20:10 står det desuden klart, at der er tale om et
vekselstrømsoutput.
Desuden, som nævnt af Hybridgenerator under samme punkt i anmodningen om bevissikring side 13:
“Et netværkslignende vekselstrømsoutput er teknisk nødvendigt for at hybridgeneratorsystemet skal kunne drive alle almindelige elektriske enheder, da elektriske enheder er designede til specifikke vekselstrømsoutput.”
the hybrid generator system comprising a housing
accommodating:
Se fx billeder i Bilag B1 samt i Bilag C1 mellem 08:20-08:40 og 18:35-18:40, hvorfra det er tydeligt at systemet har et
hus.
- a rechargeable electrical energystorage unit, such as a battery,configured to provide a DC poweroutput,
I Bilag C1, fx ved 20:20-21:00, nævnes det, at der bruges et Lithium-Titanate (LTO) batteri.
Brug af LTO-batteri er også beskrevet i Bilag B2.
- at least a first primary energysource, such as a combustion engine, for charging the rechargeable energy storage unit, and
I Bilag C1, ved 11:45-12:05, fortælles at motoren helst skal være af en type der kører 1500 rpm, og at motoren er isoleret fra belastningen og kun oplader batteriet.
- an inverter unit configured forconverting the DC power outputfrom the rechargeable energystorage unit to the grid-like ACpower output,
I Bilag C1, ved 04:20-05:00, forklares det, at hybridgeneratoren har en inverter, der leverer det nødvendige output, og at batteriet er dimensioneret til at understøtte inverterens forbrug. Det er dermed klart, at inverteren omformer DC power fra batteriet til outputtet. Det nævnes desuden ved 12:20- 12:30, at der bruges en inverter af mærket Victron.
18
wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power outputis provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unitvia the inverter unit, and
Ifølge Bilag C1, ved 15:30-15:55, og ifølge Bilag B2 leveres et output der er meget netlignende, som leveres udelukkende fra inverteren, der er separeret fra opladningssystemet og isoleret fra motoren. Dermed må inverteren trække strømmen fra batteriet, og det netlignende output være leveret udelukkende fra batteriet via inverteren.
Hybridgenerator skriver desuden under samme punkt i anmodningen om bevissikring side 13:
“[..] at et alternativ hvor dieselmotoren også bidrager til den netværkslignende vekselstrøm vil kræve at dieselmotoren operere ved en korrekt omdrejningshastighed OG i fase med inverteren. Dette vil dels være en kompliceret løsning men det vil også sænke dieselmotorens effektivitet imod ønsket fra HGsystems.”
På samme vis er dette tydeligvis også imod ønsket fra Hybridgenerator selv på daværende tidspunkt (se fx Bilag B1), og denne udtalelse dokumenterer, at trækket genfindes i Hybridgenerators produkter som vist i Bilag B1, B2 og C1.
Som det forklares nedenfor, så forholder det sig dog anderledes for Stridsprodukterne, som ikke udviser dette
træk.
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
Dette er eksplicit nævnt i Bilag C1, ved 11:55-12:05, og ogsåklart fra Bilag B2, der nævner at output er isoleret fra
motoren.
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power operation, having
peak
power requirements,
Det er klart fra Bilag C1, at ovenstående er gældende både ved peak power og nominel load. Peak power er, ved 7:30- 7:40, nævnt at kunne være omkring 180 kW i et par sekunder, mens den nominelle belastning, ved 11:20-11:35, er nævnt til at være væsentlig lavere, og at motoren kun skal være stor nok til at klare den nominelle belastning.
Disse svarer derfor til hhv. peak power operation og normal
mode operation.
the mobile hybrid generator system characterized in that the at
least first primary energy source
is dimensioned to the normal
mode power
I Bilag C1, ved 11:20-11:35, nævnes det specifikt, at motorendimensioneres til kun at kunne dække den nominelle belastning for at spare vægt, og at motoren kan være en tredjedelstørrelse af, hvad den ellers måtte være.
19
requirements, i.e.
much smaller than for the peak
power
requirements.
4.2 Sammenfattende om ugyldighed (manglende nyhed)
Som det fremgår ovenfor, opfylder Stridspatentets krav 1 ikke betingelserne for nyhed, jf. Artikel 52(1) og 54(2) EPC. Stridspatentet kan derfor ikke anses som værende gyldigt, og kan på den baggrund ikke danne grundlag for kendelsen om bevissikring. Alternativt medfører det i det mindste at formodningen for gyldighed er svækket i en sådan grad, at Stridspatentet ikke kan danne grundlag for bevissikringen. Af disse årsager skal domstolens kendelse af 16. august 2024 afsagt i medfør af UPC-aftalens artikel 60, stk. 1 og 2, og procesreglementets regel 196, ophæves, jf. UPC-aftalens artikel 60, stk. 6, og procesreglementets regel 197, stk. 4.
Hybridgenerator har i sin sagsfremstilling anført at også trækkene i underkrav 5 (brændstoftank og forbrændingsmotor), underkrav 6 (LTO-batteri), underkrav 7 (solceller) og underkrav 13 (hybridsystemet er sat på en trailer) antages at være udvist af Stridsprodukterne. Hybridgenerator påberåber sig udelukkende krav 1 til støtte for sin anmodning, og det bemærkes derfor blot, at også disse træk er kendte fra Hybridgenerators egne produkter allerede inden prioritetsdatoen (jf. bilag A1-D1).
Da Bilag A1-D1 alle henviser til Hybridgenerators egne produkter og egen offentliggørelser forud for prioritetsdatoen, har Hybridgenerator været – eller burde være – vidende om, at Stridspatentets gyldighed med denne information ville blive betvivlet. Da domstolen samtidig er blevet bedt om at træffe beslutning om foreløbige foranstaltninger uden forudgående høring af rekvisiti (ex parte), jf. procesreglementets regel 197, stk. 1, og dermed uden at rekvisiti blev givet chance for at belyse dette for domstolen forud for kendelsen, burde Hybridgenerator have oplyst domstolen om sine egne offentliggørelser forud for prioritetsdatoen og have belyst Stridspatentets gyldighed i lyset af dette, jf. procesreglementets regel 192, stk. 3. Hybridgenerator har dermed ikke opfyldt sin forpligtigelse i henhold til regel 192, stk. 3, til at fremlægge al materiale som Hybridgenerator var vidende om, og som kunne have en indvirkning på domstolens beslutning.
5 Stridsprodukterne krænker ikke Stridspatentets krav 1
Patentets krav 1 har følgende indhold:
1. “A mobile hybrid generator system for providing grid-like AC power output to a
load at off-grid locations, the hybrid generator system comprising a housing accommodating:
- a rechargeable electrical energy storage unit, such as a battery, configured
to provide a DC power output,
- at least a first primary energy source, such as a combustion engine, for charging the rechargeable energy storage unit, and
- an inverter unit configured for converting the DC power output from the rechargeable energy storage unit to the grid-like AC power output,
20
wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power operation, having peak power requirements,
the mobile hybrid generator system characterized in that the at least first primary energy source is dimensioned to the normal mode power requirements, i.e.
much smaller than for the peak power requirements.”
I Hybridgenerators sagsfremstilling henvises der til, at Stridsprodukterne, på baggrund af angiveligt
at kunne levere et 24 kVA vekselstrømsoutput og at have en ‘Stage V Cat’ motor til ladning, skulle
opfølge betingelserne:
1) “the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements,
and during peak power operation, having peak power requirements,”
Dette er dog ikke en korrekt antagelse fra Hybridgenerator. Stridsprodukterne opfylder ikke disse
betingelser i patentets krav 1.
Særligt er det væsentligt at bemærke, at krav 1 specificerer, at:
1) “the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter unit” [min fremhævning], og at
2) “the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy
storage unit” [min fremhævning].
Desuden er det specifikt angivet, at disse to betingelser skal være opfyldt både ved
a) ‘normal mode operation’ og ved
b) ‘peak power operation’.
21
Det fremgår desuden af beskrivelsen i Stridspatentet, jf. bilag 6, under punktet ‘Summary’ på side
2, under afsnit [0009] i højre spalte, linje 51, at:
“A key feature is that the presently mobile hybrid generator system preferably is configured and dimensioned such that the AC power output is provided only from the inverter unit, both during normal mode operation and during peak power operation, i.e. pure inverter based operation can be provided at all times. I.e. the presently mobile hybrid generator system is preferably configured and dimensioned such that the AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter unit, both during normal mode operation and during peak power operation.” [understregningen er ikke tilføjet, men fremgår af det citerede.]
Det fremgår videre under afsnit [0012] på side 3, venstre spalte, linje 29, at:
“[0012] The present inventor has realized that with pure inverter based operation the power factor issue, usually associated with generators, is much less of an issue, i.e. by dimensioning the inverter unit of the presently disclosed hybrid generator system for the peak load requirements, much can be gained. In that regard it is noted that a 90 kVA inverter unit can provide a power output of 180 kW for a few seconds with a suitable dimensioned battery. With the inverter unit in itself being able to handle the peak power requirement, and if an engine is used as the primary energy source, the engine can be dimensioned for the normal mode operation, i.e. a much smaller and engine is required and the engine can be operated only temporarily such that fuel efficiency and engine efficiency can be optimized. Under typical loading conditions the load can be provided from the rechargeable energy source, and as the engine is only used for charging the rechargeable energy source, operation of the engine can be reduced to a few hours per day – which should be compared to close to 24 hour engine operation, even with state of the art hybrid generator systems.” [min understregning]
Af beskrivelsen i Stridspatentet, jf. bilag 6, under punktet ‘Detailed description’ på side 3, under afsnit [0014] i højre spalte, start linje 20, fremgår det at:
“[0014] The presently disclosed hybrid generator system is preferably configured such that output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit – in that case the output from the primary energy source cannot be used for the load. I.e. typically there is no direct connection between the primary energy source and the inverter unit, in that case they are only connected through the rechargeable energy storage unit.” [min understregning]
Det fremgår videre under afsnit [0022] på side 4, højre spalte, linje 5, at:
“[0022] A major advantage of decoupling the primary energy source from the load, is that the primary energy source can be operated completely independently, e.g. in terms of AC power frequency. AC power output is usually provided at around 50 Hz. If the engine + generator is connected to the load, 50 Hz requires an engine speed of around 1500 RPM with a four pole generator. But a typical diesel engine does not operate efficiently at 1500 RPM. The primary energy source of the presently disclosed hybrid generator can be operated independently of the load, such that in case of a primary AC power source,
22
the frequency of the AC power output from the primary energy source can be different than the frequency require of the AC load.”
Stridsprodukterne er imidlertid opbygget således, at en forbrændingsmotor driver en jævnstrømsgenerator (DC). Jævnstrømmen fra jævnstrømsgeneratoren, der leveres vha. forbrændingsmotoren, bruges dels af inverteren til at levere et AC-output (vekselstrøm og netlignende output), hvis hybridgeneratoren er belastet, dels til at oplade batterierne i de tilfælde at belastningen er mindre end outputtet fra jævnstrømsgeneratoren. Det medfører, at ved maksimum belastning af hybridgeneratoren bliver al strøm, genereret af forbrændingsmotoren, brugt af inverteren til at levere et AC-output (vekselstrøm eller netlignende output) samtidigt med, at yderligere strøm hentes fra batterierne. Det medfører altså, at forbrændingsmotoren i dette tilfælde leverer strøm, som ikke bruges til at oplade batterierne, og at det netlignende output delvist bliver leveret af forbrændingsmotoren. Ved lille eller ingen belastning af hybridgeneratoren bliver det overskydende strøm, genereret af forbrændingsmotoren, brugt til opladning af batterierne. Det medfører altså at forbrændingsmotoren i dette tilfælde leverer strøm, som delvist ikke bruges til at oplade batterierne, og at det netlignende output bliver leveret af forbrændingsmotoren.
Det er derfor klart, at Stridsprodukterne ikke opfylder betingelsen, at det netlignende output kun bliver leveret fra ‘the rechargeable energy storage unit’, dvs. batterierne. Dette er hverken tilfældet ved maksimal belastning eller middel belastning.
Det er ligeledes klart, at Stridsprodukterne ikke opfylder betingelsen, at outputtet fra ‘the primary energy source’, altså forbrændingsmotoren, kun bliver brugt til at oplade ‘the rechargeable energy storage unit’, dvs. batterierne.
Hybridgenerator skriver i sin sagsfremstilling (side 14):
“Det er overvejende sandsynligt at den netværkslignende vekselstrøm kun er leveret af batteri og inverter, fordi et alternativ hvor dieselmotoren også bidrager til den netværkslignende vekselstrøm vil kræve at dieselmotoren operere ved en korrekt omdrejningshastighed OG i fase med inverteren. Dette vil dels være en kompliceret løsning men det vil også sænke dieselmotorens effektivitet imod ønsket fra HGsystems.” [min understregning]
Som ovenfor beskrevet, er dette imidlertid ikke tilfældet for Stridsprodukterne, idet disse gør brug af en jævnstrømsgenerator (DC), der leverer jævnstrøm til både batteri og inverter (og dermed outputtet). Dieselmotorens omdrejningshastighed er i dette tilfælde underordnet, idet dieselmotoren driver en jævnstrømsgenerator, som dermed ikke influerer på inverterens eller outputtets fase.
Videre skriver Hybridgenerator i sin sagsfremstilling (side 14):
“Hvis dieselmotoren (primary energy source) benyttes til direkte at levere netværkslignende vekselstrøm så skal en 4 cylinders dieselmotor operere ved 1500 omdrejninger, men der er en typisk dieselmotor ikke
effektiv.”
23
Det er dog underordnet, om en dieselmotor er ineffektiv, hvis den benyttes til direkte at levere netværkslignende vekselstrøm. Ordlyden i patentets krav 1 kræver, at output fra motoren kun bliver brugt til at oplade batterierne. En effektivt kørende dieselmotor kan udmærket bruges til både at oplade batterierne samt levere strøm til inverteren, og dermed udenom batterierne til outputtet, som det er tilfældet i
Stridsprodukterne.
Det er dermed klart, at Stridsprodukterne ikke falder under krav 1 i Stridspatentet, og det er ligeledes klart, at Hybridgenerators begrundelser ikke viser, at det skulle være tilfældet. Det er dermed ikke sandsynliggjort, at Stridsprodukterne skulle krænke Stridspatentet. Det synes omvendt mere sandsynligt end usandsynligt, at Stridsprodukterne ikke krænker patentet, idet de ikke opfylder væsentlige træk i patentets hovedkrav.
6 Enten er Stridspatentet ugyldigt og ellers er der ingen krænkelse
Bilag A1-D1 viser offentliggørelse af Hybridgenerators hybridgeneratorer forud for prioritetsdatoen. Det er et krav for gyldigheden af et europæisk patent, jf. Artikel 52(1) og 54(2) EPC, at det er nyt, og det er derfor ikke muligt, at Stridspatentet både kan være gyldigt og samtidigt omfatte en hybridgenerator, som ikke adskiller sig væsentligt fra Hybridgenerators egne hybridgeneratorer som vist i bilag A1-D1.
Det betyder, at hvis domstolen når den konklusion, at Stridspatentet er gyldigt, uanset rekvisiti bemærkninger i relation til den manglende gyldighed ovenfor under punkt D4, så vil det medføre, at Stridsprodukterne ikke kan udgøre en krænkelse af Stridspatentet. Det skyldes, at Hybridgenerators argumentation er baseret på en fortolkning af krav 1, som allerede er offentliggjort af Hybridgenerator selv forud for prioritetsdatoen. Stridspatentet er derfor enten ugyldigt som følge af manglende nyhed, og hvis domstolen ikke følger den argumentation, så ligger det fast, at Stridsprodukterne ikke kan udgøre en krænkelse af Stridspatentet.
7 Betingelserne for bevissikring
7.1 Beviskravet
UPC-aftalens artikel 60, stk. 1, betinger bevissikring af, at den, der anmoder herom, kan fremlægge
et ‘rimeligt tilgængeligt bevismateriale’.
7.2 Proportionalitetskrav
En bevissikringsundersøgelse er et ganske indgribende retsmiddel, som til enhver tid skal overholde kravet om proportionalitet, jf. UPC-aftalens artikel 42 om det almindelige proportionalitetskrav og retshåndhævelsesdirektivets krav om proportionalitet, der gælder generelt, jf. artikel 3, stk. 2. Dette gælder tilsvarende artikel 60, hvilket følger af, at bestemmelsen er baseret på retshåndhævelsesdirektivet, og at UPC skal respektere EU-retten, jf. UPC-aftalens artikel 20 og 24, stk. 1.
EU’s charter om grundlæggende rettigheder, der gælder ved gennemførelse af EU-retten, jf. chartrets artikel 51, stk. 1, indeholder således også almindelige bestemmelser om beskyttelse af privatlivets fred i artikel 7 og 8. Indgreb i disse er undergivet et almindeligt proportionalitetsprincip, jf. artikel 52, stk. 1. UPC’s regler om bevissikring er en gennemførelse af EU’s retshåndhævelsesdirektiv, hvorfor chartret og dermed
24
proportionalitetsprincippet gælder. Et proportionalitetsprincip antydes dog også delvist i artikel 60, stk. 1, in
fine, hvor det hedder, at bevissikringen forudsætter, at fortrolige oplysninger beskyttes.
En bevissikring kan derfor alene gennemføres med behørig hensyntagen til, at indgrebet skal være
proportionalt.
7.3 Betingelserne i relation til de enkelte subjekter
Hybridgenerators begæring om bevissikring af 16. august 2024 er rettet mod ikke mindre end fem
parter (samlet benævnt rekvisiti):
1. HGSystem HG
2. System Holding
3. Infotech Concept
4. Infotech Holding og
5. (personligt).
Det gøres gældende, at denne sag ikke har nogen relation til de fire sidstnævnte ovenfor. Forudsat at
Hybridgenerator mener at have en berettiget interesse i bevissikring i relation til Stridsprodukterne, så gøres
det gældende, at en sådan sag alene kan rettes mod HGSystem. De fire øvrige – HGSystem Holding, Infotech
Concept, Infotech Holding og burde imidlertid aldrig have været inddraget i sagen.
Det er alene HGSystems aktiviteter, der relaterer sig til Stridsprodukterne.
I relation til HGSystem Holding og Infotech Holding (som er holdingselskaber for HGSystem og Infotech
Concept) så anfører Hybridgenerator, at bevissikringen er rettet mod disse selskaber ‘for at imødegå det ikke
usandsynlige tilfælde, at har placeret relevant bevismateriale i holdingselskaberne’. Der er
end ikke noget sted påstået eller forsøgt antydet, at disse selskaber har nogen relation til Stridsprodukterne,
men blot medtaget på en overordnet og udokumenteret betragtning om, at potentiel kunne
have gemt bevismateriale i disse selskaber. Der er ingen beviser herfor, endsige en sandsynliggørelse af, at
det er tilfældet, ligesom det i øvrigt bestrides at være tilfældet. Der er således ingen begrundelse for,
hvorfor anmodningen om bevissikring mod HGSystem Holding og Infotech Holding skulle være nødvendig, jf.
procesreglementets regel 192, stk. 2, afsnit 1, litra c. Beviskravet er ikke opfyldt og anmodningen er ikke
proportional. Kendelsen skal også af denne årsag ophæves i relation til HGSystem Holding og Infotech
Holding. Dette synes Hybridgenerator da også have erkendt i forbindelse med anlæggelsen af sagen om
sagens realitet, idet de to selskaber ikke er inkluderet i dette søgsmål.
25
I forlængelse af det sidste forstår vi, at der er anlagt sag om realiteten af Hybridgenerator den 26.
september 2024 (vi har dog fortsat ikke modtaget nogle officielle informationer herom fra den lokale danske
UPC-afdeling i København). HGSystem Holding og Infotech Holding er tilsyneladende ikke en del af den
anlagte sag om sagens realitet. Domstolen skal på den baggrund sikre, at kendelsen om bevissikring
ophæves eller tilbagekaldes eller på anden måde ophører med at have virkning for disse selskaber, jf.
procedurereglementets regel 198).
I relation til Infotech Concept er Hybridgenerators begrundelse for at inddrage selskabet i
bevissikringssagen, at selskabet står som registrant af domænet, som hgsystem.dk. Der er ikke nogen af
bilagene i sagen, som i øvrigt peger på, at Infotech Concept har nogen relation til Stridsprodukterne.
Tværtimod. Infotech Concept er registreret indehaver af domænet af den simple årsag, at HGSystem endnu
ikke var stiftet, da domænet blev erhvervet. Der kan i øvrigt på baggrund af de fremlagte bilag ikke være
nogen tvivl om, at det er HGSystem som råder over domænet, hvorfor det ikke er nødvendigt at inddrage
Infotech Concept (det bemærkes, at Hybridgenerator også selv i sin begæring har anført, at hjemmesiden på
domænet hgsystem.dk fremgår som en virksomhedsside for HGSystem). Beviskravet er derfor ikke opfyldt
og anmodningen er i øvrigt ikke proportional. Kendelsen skal også af denne årsag ophæves i relation til
Infotech Concept.
Slutteligt i relation til personligt er Hybridgenerators begrundelse i begæringen, at LinkedIn-
og Facebook-opslagene i bilag 31-38, bilag 41-45, bilag 47-59 samt bilag 65-66 stammer fra
personlige LinkedIn-profil samt personlige Facebook-profil, og at
og at det derfor er ‘sandsynligt’, at har gjort brug af den viden, han har fra sin
ansættelse i Hybridgenerator til at Det sidste er alene udtryk for
Hybridgenerators spekulationer, og der er ikke fremlagt noget bevis for, at dette skulle være tilfældet,
ligesom det ikke er proportionalt at bygge en bevissikringssag på en ganske uunderbygget formodning om,
at en tidligere medarbejder måske har brugt sit kendskab til virksomheden til egen vinding efter sin
ansættelse. Et sådant angreb skal underbygges af dokumentation, som peger i retning af, at det er tilfældet.
Det er der end ikke forsøgt ført bevis for i denne sag – vi har alene rekvirentens gætterier. Videre bemærkes
det, at ikke personligt har markedsført eller solgt Stridsprodukterne. Det gælder på trods af
den aktivitet, der, som vist i bilagene, har været i relation til HGSystems produkter, herunder
Stridsprodukterne (idet bilagene også relaterer sig til produkter som ikke er genstand for nærværende sag).
Det fremgår med al tydelighed af de fremlagte opslag fra sociale medier, hvis man fx ser på bilag 8 og 9, at
opslag – uanset at de er lavet på hans personlige sociale medie profiler – er lavet i regi af
HGSystem. På både bilag 8 og 9 ses det, at coverbilledet er en reklame for HGSystem. Opslagene er derfor
lavet i regi af HGSystem og i Det er helt sædvanligt, at
direktører (og i øvrigt lavere rangerende medarbejdere) laver markedsføring af den virksomhed, de arbejder
i via deres personlige sociale medie profiler. Dette peger altså ikke på, at personligt skulle
have markedsført eller solgt Stridsprodukterne. Der er således ingen begrundelse for, hvorfor anmodningen
om bevissikring mod skulle være nødvendig, jf. procesreglementets regel 192, stk. 2, afsnit 1,
litra c. Beviskravet er ikke opfyldt og anmodningen er ikke proportional – særligt i lyset af, at
er personligt inddraget i sagen, jf. EU’s charter om grundlæggende rettigheder om beskyttelse af privatlivets
fred i artikel 7 og 8. Kendelsen skal også af denne årsag ophæves i relation til
26
Det gøres samlet gældende, at Hybridgenerator har inddraget parter, som ikke er relevante for
bevissikringssagen, og i forhold til hvem det ikke er bevist, sandsynliggjort eller i det mindste peget på
objektive omstændigheder, der antyder en forbindelse til sagens genstand. Det medfører i sig selv, at
beviskravet for gennemførelsen af bevissikringen ikke er opfyldt, ligesom bevissikringen ikke er nødvendig
eller i øvrigt proportional.
Dette skal føre til, at bevissikringskendelsen også af denne årsag skal ophæves i relation til HGSystem
Holding, Infotech Concept, Infotech Holding og
8 Genstanden for bevissikringen
Det bemærkes, at rekvisiti ved meddelelse af 16. september 2024 fremsatte en række indsigelser mod
genstanden for bevissikringen og omfanget heraf, herunder de af Hybridgenerator fremlagte søgetermer,
hvortil der ikke er fremkommet yderligere bemærkninger fra hverken domstolen eller Hybridgenerator. De
fremsatte bemærkninger i brevet fastholdes, hvortil der også henvises.
9 Sagsomkostninger
Rekvisiti begærer sig tillagt rimelige og forholdsmæssigt afpassede sagsomkostninger og andre udgifter, jf.
UPC-aftalens artikel 69, stk. 1. Der skal ved omkostningsfastsættelsen tages hensyn til at sikre, at en
væsentlig og passende del af de rimelige udgifter, som den part, der har vundet sagen, har afholdt, bæres af
den tabende part, jf. artikel 14 i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2004/48 som fortolket af EU-
Domstolen i dom af 28. juli 2016 i sag C-57/15 (United Video Properties).
Der vil til brug for domstolens sagsomkostningsafgørelse blive fremlagt en oversigt over de afholdte
omkostninger samt fordelingen heraf i forbindelse med den mundtlige høring.
Dette gælder ikke mindst for HGSystem Holding og Infotech Holding, som ikke er en del af den anlagte sag
om sagens realitet.
10 Erstatning for ulovligt indgreb
Rekvisiti begærer sig desuden tillagt erstatning for den ulovligt gennemførte bevissikringsforretning. I UPC-
aftalens artikel 60, stk. 9, er det fastslået, at den, der begærer anvendelse af et foreløbigt retsmiddel, kan
blive erstatningsansvarlig, hvis han ikke rettidigt får anlagt en hovedsag, ligesom der kan tilkendes erstatning
for uberettiget brug af foreløbige retsmidler, jf. også procesreglementets regel 198, stk. 2, og regel 354, stk.
2. Rekvisiti begærer sig tillagt både en passende erstatning samt godtgørelse for tort.
…”
Rekvisitis processkrift af 29. oktober 2024:
”…
C SUPPLERENDE SAGSFREMSTILLING OG ANBRINGENDER
27
1 Stridsprodukterne krænker ikke Stridspatentets krav 1
Som det allerede er redegjort for i anmodningen om revurdering af kendelsen om bevissikring udviser Stridsprodukterne ikke træk 1.6-1.8 i Stridspatentets krav 1.
Særligt understreges det, at krav 1 i træk 1.6 og 1.7 specificerer, at:
1) “the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter unit” [min fremhævning], og at
2) “the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit” [min fremhævning].
Desuden er det specifikt angivet, at disse to betingelser, jf. træk 1.8, skal være opfyldt både ved
a) ‘normal mode operation’ og ved
b) ‘peak power operation’.
Der henvises desuden til de citater fra Stridspatentets beskrivelse, som er indsat i anmodningen om revurdering af kendelsen om bevissikring afsnit D5 på side 10-11.
I forbindelse med indlevering af Patentansøgningen den 28. oktober 2021, indleverede Hybridgenerator et følgebrev (såkaldt “PCT Direct”) med kommentarer til ansøgningen og særligt til EPOs søgerapport af 13. april 2021 relateret til Prioritetsansøgningen.
Af følgebrevet fremgår det, at Prioritetsansøgningens krav 1, som indeholdt følgende begrænsning i
Prioritetsansøgningen:
“the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the inverter unit, both during normal mode operation and during peak power operation,”
blev ændret ved indlevering af Patentansøgningen, således at træk 1.6-1.8 blev tilføjet i Stridspatentets krav 1, og som specificerer, at:
1) “the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable
energy storage unit via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the
28
rechargeable energy storage unit, both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power operation, having peak power
requirements,”
Af Hybridgenerators argumentation i brevet af 28. oktober 2021 fremgår det, at ovenstående blev indført netop med det formål, at krav 1 dermed adskilte sig fra de citerede modhold i EPOs søgerapport relateret til Prioritetsansøgningen. I brevet, jf. bilag K på side 2-3 skrev Hybridgenerator med hensyn til GB 2 493 631 A (herefter “GB 631”) (citeret som D1 i EPOs søgerapport):
“As seen from the citations above the battery in D1 is provided to either assist the genset during peak power operation (par. 12), provide sufficient power for operation during very low load conditions such that the engine can be turned off (par. 15) or provide for a transient power request, such that the engine can be ramped up and then provide the load (par. 16).
Hence, the hybrid generator system in D1 is NOT configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage device via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
both during normal mode operation and during peak power operation.
This fact is most clearly contradicted in par. 15 where it is explicitly stated that the system automatically restarts the engine and operates the engine at an efficient load point by powering the load and charging the battery simultaneously.
Thus, present claim 1 is novel over D1”
På side 3 i brevet (bilag K) skrev Hybridgenerator med hensyn til GB 2434928 A1 (herefter “GB 928”) (citeret som D2):
“[..] The inverter is specified as follows in claim 1 of D2:
an inverter electrically connected to the DC generator and to the one or more battery cells, the inverter configured to convert DC electricity produced by the DC generator and DC electricity discharged from the one or more battery cells to alternating current (“AC”) electricity, the AC electricity available for use by a load.
Cf. also figs. 1 and 2 where the inverter is directly connected to both the DC generator and the battery.
Hence, the hybrid generator system in D2 is not configured such that
29
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage device via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
both during normal mode operation and during peak power operation.
Thus present claim 1 is novel in view of D2”
I relation til US 2014/277791 A1 (herefter “US 791”) (citeret som D4), på side 4 i brevet, jf. bilag K, betonede Hybridgenerator, at Stridspatentets krav 1 adskilte sig på baggrund af de ændrede træk:
“Par. 29 states as follows:
[0029] A hybrid generator (e.g., HYGENTM), such as described herein, fills a longstanding need in the portable generator set arena by addressing current problems such as generators operating very inefficiently and consuming copious quantities of fuel running at partial load. In one embodiment of the invention, the generator may be forced to operate at its most efficient power setting (e.g., prime power), regardless of the user demand. An embodiment may be able to operate a generator at it most efficient power setting because of an on-board battery storage which may allow excess energy to be stored if the user demand is less than a generator's optimum operating regime. If, for example, the user demand is well-matched to the power output, then very little power may be sent to the batteries. Alternatively, if the load is poorly matched to the generator’s output, (as is usually the case), then a significant fraction of the generator’s output may be stored in the batteries. Once the batteries are charged, the engine may be shut off and the batteries may operate the user load for many hours without the generator operating saving substantial fuel, reducing noise, and reducing emissions.
Hence, the hybrid generator system in D4 is not configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage device via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
both during normal mode operation and during peak power operation.
As cited above D4 explicitly states that the engine-generator distributes power between the load and the battery. Thus present claim 1 is novel in view of D4.”
Det er altså klart fra Hybridgenerators kommentarer i brevet af 28. oktober 2021 og af kravændringerne i forhold til Prioritetsansøgningen, at disse træk 1.6-1.8 er væsentlige for, hvorvidt krav 1 har nyhed, og dermed også for fortolkningen af omfanget af krav 1.
30
Særligt kan det konkluderes, at der i Stridspatentets krav 1 efter indførelsen af træk 1.6-1.8 eksplicit ikke er en forbindelse mellem output fra “primary energy source” og “inverter”. Det er ifølge Hybridgenerator omvendt tilfældet for de ovennævnte modhold, hvor Hybridgenerator har peget på de følgende begrundelser for, at modholdene ikke er nyhedsskadelige for Stridspatentets krav 1:
- I relation til GB 631 (D1) fremhæver Hybridgenerator, at det i paragraf 15 er nævnt at motoren samtidigt kan levere strøm til både belastningen og til opladning af batterierne.
- I relation til GB 928 (D2) fremhæver Hybridgenerator figur 1 og 2, som viser at inverteren er direkte koblet til både jævnstrømsgenerator (DC-generator) og batteri.
- I relation til US 791 A1 (D4) fremhæver Hybridgenerator, at det i paragraf 29 beskrives, at overskydende strøm fra generatoren lagres i batterier, hvis belastningen er mindre end generatorens output ved optimal drift, men at generatorens output, hvis belastningen er ens med outputtet, ledes (næsten) al strøm fra generatoren til belastningen.
Hybridgenerator peger da netop også på træk 1.6-1.8 som helt essentielle for opfindelsen, som er beskrevet ifølge Stridspatentet. Det angives f.eks. i processkriftet af 22. oktober 2024 (på side 6), at:
“Dette er ikke korrekt, og rekvisitus forglemmer, at både 1) og 2) skal være til stede for både peak power operation og normal mode operation.” [min understregning]
Som også beskrevet i anmodningen om revurdering af kendelsen om bevissikring så er Stridsprodukterne imidlertid opbygget således, at en forbrændingsmotor driver en jævnstrømsgenerator (DC), som leverer jævnstrøm på en fælles gennemgående DC-bus, hvortil også batterierne og inverteren er tilkoblet. Der er altså en direkte kobling mellem jævnstrømsgeneratoren og inverteren. Altså præcis det samme princip som nævnt i både GB 631 (D1) hvor motoren samtidigt kan levere strøm til både belastningen og til opladning af batterierne, som i GB 928, hvor inverteren er direkte koblet til både jævnstrømsgenerator og batteri, og som i US 791, hvor overskydende strøm fra generatoren kan lagres i batterierne, men hvor al generatorens output kan forbruges af inverteren, hvis belastningen er det samme eller større end output fra generatoren.
Altså er jævnstrømsgenerator, batterier og inverter i Stridsprodukterne koblet på samme vis, som det er beskrevet i de tre ovenfor nævnte modhold. Stridsprodukterne fungerer altså netop på den måde, som Hybridgenerator bevidst har skrevet ud af patentkravet for at sikre, at løsningen ikke omfattede løsningen, der fremgik af modholdene. En øvelse, der skulle imødegå EPOs indsigelser mod manglende nyhed af Prioritetsansøgningens krav 1 i EPOs søgerapport.
Forbindelsen mellem jævnstrømsgenerator, batterier og inverter i Stridsprodukterne, kan ses af de følgende billeder af Stridsprodukterne (tabellen nedenfor fremlægges som Bilag Q og de enkelte billeder som Bilag
R).
31
Beskrivelse Fotos af Stridsprodukterne
På dette billede ses det komplette Stridsprodukt – en trailerbaseret hybridgenerator.
På dette billede ses henholdsvis dieselmotoren og
inverter-enheden inden de
installeres på traileren,
som ses i baggrunden.
Dette billede viser batterielementet inden den installeres i traileren, og uden
monteret topdæksel.
Som det kan ses, er batterielementet monteret med
én gennemgående DC busbar i den ene side, og en
anden gennemgående DC
bus-bar i den modsatte
side. Disse er som det kan
ses af billedet koblet til
henholdsvis den negative
og den positive pol af
batterielementet.
32
Dette billede er taget langs
med trailerens kørselsretning, inden motor, inverter
og diesel-tank installeres.
Billedet er taget fra rummet til isætning af motoren, hvilket bl.a. kan ses af
udluftningskanalen til
højre.
På billedet ses også batterielementet liggende nedersti det midterste rum. Desuden ses i venstre side afbatteripakken den eneende af den ene gennemgå-ende DC bus-bar, hvortilmotorens ene DC outputpol tilkobles. Den
anden gennemgående DC bus-barbefinder sig bagved udluftningskanalen til højre, og er derfor ikke synlig pådette
billede.
Dette billede viser dieselmotoren, med tilhørende
DC-generator, til installering i motorrummet vist
ovenfor. Som det kan ses,
har motoren en firkantet
køleenhed, som passer i
udluftningskanalen som
vist ovenfor.
Jævnstrømsgeneratoren leverer jævnstrøm (DC output) via seks kabler, tre
med negativ polaritet og
tre med positiv polaritet,
som ved installation kobles
33
til henholdsvis den ene og
den anden DC bus-bar.
Dette billede er taget fra
midten af traileren, hvor
dieseltanken installeres,
mod motorrummet. På billedet ses toppen af motorrummets
udluftningskanal.
Af billedet kan ses de seks
kabler der leverer jævnstrøm fra jævnstrømsgeneratoren, tre der går mod
den ene (positive) DC busbar og tre der går mod den
anden (negative) DC busbar.
Dette billede viser højre
side (ift. kørselsretningen)
af trailerens inverter-rum,
hvori inverter-enheden
installeres.
Batterielementet ses i bunden til højre i billedet.
Billedet viser kobling af en
række sikkerhedsafbrydere
til den af de to gennemgå-
ende DC bus-bars, der løber langs trailerens højre
side.
34
Dette billede viser inverterenheden delvist installeret i trailerens inverter-
rum.
Det kan ses af billedet, at
kabler til levering af DC input til inverteren er henholdsvis røde og sorte og
trukket til henholdsvis venstre og højre side for efterfølgende kobling til henholdsvis den ene og den
anden gennemgående DC
bus bar.
Dette billede viser tilkobling af de røde kabler fra inverteren til sikkerhedsafbryderne på den ene gennemgående DC bus-bar, som vist på tidligere billede.
35
Kobling mellem motor, batteri og inverter er desuden vist i nedenstående 3D-visualiseringer af
Stridsprodukterne, henholdsvis vist i perspektiv og ovenfra (fremlægges som Bilag S):
Af ovennævnte billeder og figurer kan koblingen mellem motor/jævnstrømsgenerator, batterielement og inverter i Stridsprodukterne skematisk illustreres således (fremlagt som Bilag T):
36
Det er dermed klart, at strømmen fra jævnstrømsgeneratoren, der drives af forbrændingsmotoren,
ikke er afkoblet fra inverterens DC-input, men tværtimod direkte forbundet ved hjælp af de to DC
bus-bars, der løber langs trailerens længde i henholdsvis venstre og højre side.
Diagrammet viser desuden også, at forbindelsen mellem motor/jævnstrømsgenerator, batterielement og inverter i Stridsprodukterne er udført som det er kendt fra de ovenfor fremhævede modhold, bl.a. fra US 791, der på figur 6 (nederste højre del), viser samme skematiske kobling mellem motor/generator, batterielement og inverter (udsnit af figur 6 fra US 791, jf. bilag L, farvelagt i overensstemmelse med diagrammet for Stridsprodukterne):
Strømmen fra forbrændingsmotoren/jævnstrømsgeneratoren bruges derfor, dels af inverteren til at levere et AC-output (vekselstrøm og netlignende output), hvis hybridgeneratoren er belastet, dels til at oplade batterierne i de tilfælde at belastningen er mindre end outputtet fra jævnstrømsgeneratoren.
Ved maksimal belastning af Stridsprodukterne bliver al strøm, genereret af forbrændingsmotoren,
dermed brugt af inverteren til at levere et AC-output (vekselstrøm og netlignende output) samtidigtvmed, at yderligere strøm hentes fra batterierne. Det medfører altså, at forbrændingsmotoren i dettevtilfælde leverer
37
strøm, som ikke bruges til at oplade batterierne, og at det netlignende output delvistvbliver leveret af
forbrændingsmotoren.
Ved lille eller ingen belastning af Stridsprodukterne bliver den overskydende strøm, genereret af forbrændingsmotoren, brugt til opladning af batterierne. Det medfører altså at forbrændingsmotoren også i dette tilfælde leverer strøm, som delvist ikke bruges til at oplade batterierne, og at det netlignende output bliver, i det mindste delvist, leveret af forbrændingsmotoren.
Dette er nøjagtigt som beskrevet i paragraf 29 i US 791, og som vist i figur 1 og 2 af GB 928, som
Hybridgenerator i brevet af 28. oktober 2021 med den foretagne ændring af krav 1 fremhævede at
være udenfor beskyttelsesomfanget af Stridspatentets krav 1.
Det er derfor klart, at Stridsprodukterne ikke opfylder træk 1.6 i krav 1, der forudsætter, at det netlignende output kun bliver leveret fra ‘the rechargeable energy storage unit’, dvs. batterierne. Dette er hverken tilfældet ved maksimal belastning eller middel belastning, jf. træk 1.8.
Det er ligeledes klart, at Stridsprodukterne ikke opfylder betingelsen, at outputtet fra ‘the primary
energy source’, altså forbrændingsmotoren, kun bliver brugt til at oplade ‘the rechargeable energy
storage unit’, dvs. batterierne, jf. træk 1.7.
Hybridgenerator skriver i sin sagsfremstilling (side 14):
“Det er overvejende sandsynligt at den netværkslignende vekselstrøm kun er leveret af batteri og inverter, fordi et alternativ hvor dieselmotoren også bidrager til den netværkslignende vekselstrøm vil kræve at dieselmotoren operere ved en korrekt omdrejningshastighed OG i fase med inverteren. Dette vil dels være en kompliceret løsning men det vil også sænke dieselmotorens effektivitet imod ønsket fra HGsystems.” [min første fremhævelse]
Som ovenfor beskrevet, er dette imidlertid ikke tilfældet for Stridsprodukterne, idet disse gør brug af en jævnstrømsgenerator (DC), der leverer jævnstrøm via gennemgående og fælles DC bus-bars til både batteri og inverter (og dermed outputtet). Dieselmotorens omdrejningshastighed er underordnet, idet dieselmotoren driver en jævnstrømsgenerator, som dermed ikke influerer på inverterens eller outputtets
fase.
Videre skriver Hybridgenerator i sin sagsfremstilling (side 14):
“Hvis dieselmotoren (primary energy source) benyttes til direkte at levere netværkslignende vekselstrøm så skal en 4 cylinders dieselmotor operere ved 1500 omdrejninger,
men der er en typisk dieselmotor ikke effektiv.”
Det er dog underordnet, om en dieselmotor er ineffektiv, hvis den benyttes til direkte at levere netværkslignende vekselstrøm. Ordlyden i Stridspatentets krav 1 kræver, at output fra motoren kun bliver
38
brugt til at oplade batterierne. En dieselmotor kan imidlertid udmærket bruges til både at oplade
batterierne samt levere strøm til inverteren, og dermed udenom batterierne til outputtet, som det er
tilfældet i Stridsprodukterne, såvel som i flere af modholdene citeret under sagsbehandlingen, og samtidig
køre effektivt.
Som Bilag U fremlægges en skriftlig vidneerklæring fra som bekræfter, at forbindelsen
mellem jævnstrømsgenerator, batterier og inverter i Stridsprodukterne er som beskrevet ovenfor.
Det er dermed klart, at Stridsprodukterne ikke udviser samtlige træk i krav 1 i Stridspatentet, og det er
ligeledes klart, at Hybridgenerators begrundelser heller ikke dokumenterer, at det skulle være tilfældet. Det
er dermed ikke sandsynliggjort, at Stridsprodukterne skulle krænke Stridspatentet. Det synes omvendt mere
sandsynligt end usandsynligt, at Stridsprodukterne ikke krænker Stridspatentet, idet de ikke opfylder
væsentlige træk i Stridspatentets hovedkrav, som af Hybridgenerator bevidst er blevet indsnævret i
forbindelse med indleveringen af Patentansøgningen og i øvrigt fremhævet som centrale for at adskille
Stridspatentets beskyttelsesomfang fra den kendte teknik.
2 Stridspatentet er ugyldigt
2.1 Indledning
Stridspatentet savner nyhed overfor en række patentansøgninger offentliggjort forud for indleveringsdatoen
på Prioritetsansøgningen den 28. oktober 2020. Heraf er to sådanne patentansøgninger udvalgt og
præsenteret nedenfor, jf. afsnit C2.2 og C2.3, idet der tages forbehold for at fremlægge yderligere
nyhedsmodhold i forbindelse med hovedsagen. Stridspatentet er derfor ugyldigt på baggrund af artikel
52(1) og 54(2) EPC.
Som det er redegjort for i anmodningen om revurdering af kendelsen om bevissikring, er Stridspatentet
desuden udstedt med et omfang, som omfatter Hybridgenerators egne produkter, som er solgt og
markedsført, herunder omtalt og beskrevet offentligt, forud for indleveringsdatoen på
Prioritetsansøgningen den 28. oktober 2020. Der henvises til anmodningens afsnit D4.1 på side 5-8.
Stridspatentet er derfor ugyldigt, da det ikke opfylder kravet om nyhed, jf. artikel 52(1) og 54(2) EPC.
Stridspatentet savner desuden opfindelseshøjde i forhold til den kendte teknik på indleveringsdatoen på
Prioritetsansøgningen, jf. afsnit C2.4. Stridspatentet er også af denne grund ugyldigt, jf. artikel 56 EPC.
Dette vil der blive redegjort for i de følgende afsnit.
Der vil i det følgende blive henvist til denne trækinddeling af Stridspatentets krav 1, som i øvrigt er
identisk med Hybridgenerators trækinddeling:
Træk Stridspatentets krav 1
1.1 A mobile hybrid generator system for providing grid-like AC power output to a load at offgrid
locations,
39
1.2 the hybrid generator system comprising a housing accommodating:
1.3 - a rechargeable electrical energy storage unit, such as a battery, configured to provide aDC power
output,
1.4 - at least a first primary energy source, such as a combustion engine, for charging the rechargeable energy storage unit, and
1.5 - an inverter unit configured for converting the DC power output from the rechargeableenergy storage unit to the grid-like AC power output,
wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1.6 1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unitvia the inverter unit, and
1.7 2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
1.8 both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power operation, having peak power requirements,
1.9 he mobile hybrid generator system characterized in that the at least first primary energy
source is dimensioned to the normal mode power requirements, i.e. much smaller than for the peak power requirements
2.2 Stridspatentet er ikke nyt i forhold til GB 2434928 A1 (“GB 928”)
59. GB 928 (fremlægges som Bilag F) beskriver en generator (“a generator set”), som inkluderer en forbrændingsmotor (“internal combustion engine”) en jævnstrømsgenerator (“DC-generator”), en eller flere batteri-celler og en inverter (se bilag F, side 1, linje 23-24).
GB 928 beskriver desuden et eksempel hvori jævnstrømsgeneratoren, som drives af forbrændingsmotoren, ikke leverer strøm til inverteren, men leverer al strøm til opladning af batterierne, og hvor strøm til inverteren, og dermed til outputtet, alene leveres fra batterierne (se bilag F, side 5, linje 22- 27). Endeligt beskriver GB 928 også at den maksimale belastning (“surge rating”) er dikteret af batteriernes og inverterens størrelse og/eller evne, og at der derved kan opnås en højere maksimal belastning, end det vil være tilfældet for en generator uden batteri og inverter (se bilag F, side 6, linje 2- 6). Dermed er det altså klart, at der i GB 928 forstås en hybridgenerator, hvor forbrændingsmotoren ikke er i stand til at levere den maksimale belastning, og hvor motoren dermed er dimensioneret mindre end kravene for den maksimale
belastning.
Som det kan ses, så viser GB 928 et eksempel på en patentansøgning, offentliggjort før prioritetsdatoen for Stridspatentet, der beskriver samme elementer som Stridspatentets krav 1. Nedenfor er i tabelform, vist at GB 928 udviser alle træk i Stridspatentets krav 1 (kravsmatricen er desuden fremlagt som Bilag G):
Træk i krav 1 i Stridspatentet GB 928 (bilag F)
1.1 A mobile hybrid generator system for providing grid-like
Figurerne 4A-4D viser tydeligt et mobilt system.Side 3, linje 29-31 forklarer desuden: “For example, the
40
AC power output to a load at off-grid locations,
engine 115 may be an internal combustion engine sized such that the generator set 105 can be easily moved from one location to another (i.e. a portable generator set).”Side 4, linje 9-12 forklarer envidere: “In some embodiments, the inverter 125 converts DC electricity to a 60 hertz (“Hz”) 120 volt AC source”, og alternativt: “For example, the inverter 125 may convert DC electricity to a 50 hertz signal and/or a 240 volt AC voltage source.” Dette svarer til Stridspatentets egen definition af “gridlike AC power” (se Stridspatentets paragraf [0010]).
1.2 the hybrid generator system comprising a housing accommodating:
Figur 4A-4D viser tydeligt at systemet har et hus, som indeholder systemets komponenter.Side 4, linje 21-22 beskriver desuden: “In one embodiment, the batteries 130 are integrated into or housed within the generator set 105.”
1.3 - a rechargeable electrical energystorage unit, such as a battery,configured to provide a DC power output,
Side 1, linje 28–side 2, linje 2: “The inverter converts DC electricity produced by the DC generator and DC electricity discharged from the one or more battery cells to alternating current (“AC”) electricity.”
Side 5, linje 2-3: “Once the batteries 130 are at least partially charged, the batteries 130 can provide a DC voltage to the inverter 125.”
1.4 - at least a first primary energy source, such as a combustion engine, for charging the rechargeable energy storage unit, and
Side 4, linje 27–side 5, linje 1: “During use, the engine 115 provides the mechanical force needed to drive the generator 120.” Og videre “The DC generator 120 also provides a DC voltage to the batteries 130, which charges the batteries 130 until they reach a certain capacity.” Det er dermed klart, at en motor (“engine 115”) bruges til opladning af batterierne.
1.5 - an inverter unit configured for converting the DC power output from the rechargeable energy storage unit to the grid-like AC power output,
Side 5, linje 2-4: “Once the batteries 130 are at least partially charged, the batteries 130 can provide a DC voltage to the inverter 125, which converts the DC voltage to power the load 105.”
wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1.6 1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter unit, and
Fig. 1 viser et blokdiagram, hvor det ses at jævnstrømsgeneratoren (“DC generator” 120) leverer strøm til både inverteren (125) og til batterierne (130). På side 5, linje 26-27 beskrives det dog, at systemet alternativt kan konfigureres, således at inverteren udelukkende drives af strøm fra batterierne: “In this
41
alternative embodiment, the DC voltage is supplied to the inverter 125 by the batteries 130 only.”
1.7 2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy
storage unit,
Som nævnt ovenfor, så beskrives det på side 5, linje 22- 23, i sammenhæng med ovenstående, at systemet kan konfigureres således at jævnstrømsgeneratoren (som drives af motoren 115) ikke leverer strøm til inverteren, men at al strøm fra jævnstrømsgeneratoren bruges til opladning af batterierne: “the DC generator 120 does not supply voltage to the inverter 125, and routes all of the voltage to the batteries 130 to charge them.”
1.8 both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power operation, having peak power requirements,
Fra side 6, linje 2-6 er det klart, at den beskrevne hybridgenerator har den fordel at batteri og inverter varetager peak belastninger (“power surge”): “However, in some embodiments of the present invention, the surge rating is dictated by the size and/or capabilities of the batteries 130 and the inverter 125. As such, a relatively higher surge rating may be gained by a generator (such as the generator 115) that includes an inverter 125 and one or more batteries 130, than a generator that does not include batteries and an inverter.”
Det er dermed klart, at ovenstående kobling mellem motor, batteri og inverter er gældende både ved normal drift og ved høje belastninger.
1.9 the mobile hybrid generator system characterized in that the at least first primary energy source is dimensioned to the normal mode power requirements, i.e. much smaller than for the peak power requirements.
På side 6, linje 2-6 beskrives det, at den maksimale belastning (“surge rating”) er dikteret af batteriernes og inverterens størrelse og/eller evne, og at der derved kan opnås en højere maksimal belastning end det vil være tilfældet for en generator uden batteri og inverter: “However, in some embodiments of the present invention, the surge rating is dictated by the size and/or capabilities of the batteries 130 and the inverter 125. As such, a relatively higher surge rating may be gained by a generator (such as the generator 115) that includes an inverter 125 and one or more batteries 130, than a generator that does not include batteries and an inverter.”
Dermed er det klart, at motoren ikke er i stand til at levere den maksimale belastning, og at motoren dermed er dimensioneret mindre end kravene for den maksimale belastning.
42
Det er dermed klart, at GB 928 fratager nyhed for Stridspatentets krav 1, og at Stridspatentet dermed er ugyldigt på grund af manglende nyhed.
Det bemærkes, at GB 928 blev fremdraget af sagsbehandleren hos EPO i forbindelse med behandlingen af Stridspatentet. Ansøgningen blev fremdraget første gang i forbindelse med søgerapporten for prioritetsansøgningen (fremlægges som Bilag H) og senere også nævnt i den internationale søgerapport (fremlægges som Bilag I) og i den internationale foreløbige patenterbarhedsvurdering (fremlægges som Bilag J). Under sagsbehandlingen er GB 928 benævnt “D2”.
I forbindelse med sagsbehandlingen er det dog væsentligt at bemærke, at Hybridgenerator i brev af 28. oktober 2021 (fremlægges som Bilag K), som blev indleveret sammen med indleveringen af Patentansøgningen, argumenterer for, at GB 928 ikke fratager krav 1 nyhed, idet GB 928 på fig. 1 og 2 viser, at inverteren er direkte koblet til både jævnstrømsgeneratoren og batteriet, og derfor, efter Hybridgenerators opfattelse, ikke viser trækkene 1.6-1.8:
1) “the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power operation, having peak power requirements,”
Dette er dog imidlertid ikke korrekt, som vist ovenfor, eftersom GB 928 også, jf. bilag F på side 5,
linje 22-27, beskriver, at systemet alternativt kan være konfigureret således, at inverteren udelukkende drives af strøm fra batterierne, og at jævnstrømsgeneratoren udelukkende bruges til opladning af
batterierne:
“In an alternative embodiment, the DC generator 120 does not supply voltage to the inverter 125, and routes all of the voltage to the batteries 130 to charge them. The engine 115 continues to operate until the batteries 130 reach a predetermined charge level (e.g., full capacity, 95% capacity, etc.). Upon sufficient charge of the batteries 130, the engine 115 shuts down. In this alternative embodiment, the DC voltage is supplied to the inverter 125 by the batteries 130
only.”
Sagsbehandleren har ikke under sagsbehandlingen kommenteret yderligere på GB 928, og det er derfor nærliggende at konkludere, at sagsbehandleren ved en fejl har lagt Hybridgenerators ukorrekte kommentar i brevet af 28. oktober 2021 (bilag K) til grund, og på den baggrund ukorrekt vurderet at krav 1 havde nyhed over GB 928.
2.3 Stridspatentet er ikke nyt i forhold til US 2014/277791 A1 (“US 791”)
43
US 791 (fremlægges som Bilag L) beskriver en hybridgenerator, som omfatter en forbrændingsmotor (“fuel powered engine”), der driver en generator (“alternator”), et eller flere batterier som modtager og lagrer strøm fra generatoren og en inverter til at omforme strøm fra batterierne til at levere vekselstrøm til en belastning (se paragraf [0005]). US 791 beskriver desuden i paragraf [00029], at når batterierne er opladet, så kan motoren slukkes, og batterierne kan da over flere timer sørge for at levere den nødvendige strøm til belastningen. Endeligt beskriver US 791 også i paragraf [00049], at inverteren kan være dimensioneret til at levere 300-400% effekt i forhold til generatoren, som drives af motoren, og at dette gør, at generatoren kun behøver at være dimensioneret til en gennemsnitlig belastning – og ikke til maksimum belastning. Dermed er det altså klart, at generatoren, der drives af forbrændingsmotoren, er dimensioneret mindre end kravene for den maksimale belastning.
Som det ses nedenfor, så viser US 791 endnu et eksempel på en patentansøgning, som er offentliggjort før prioritetsdatoen, der beskriver alle kravselementer fra Stridspatentets krav 1. Nedenfor er i tabelform, vist at US 791 udviser alle træk i Stridspatentets krav 1 (kravsmatricen er desuden fremlagt som Bilag M):
Træk i krav 1 i Stridspatentet US 791 (bilag L)
1.1 A mobile hybrid generator system for providing grid-like AC power output to a load at off-grid locations,
Figur 1-5 viser tydeligt et trailerbaseret system – altså et mobilt system. Dette er også nævnt i paragraf [00031]: “Portable hybrid generator 100 includes a hybrid generator coupled to a portable trailer frame.”Paragraf [0005] nævner, at US 791 omhandler en hybridgenerator der leverer “usable electcitity for AC or DC loads” altså bl.a. net-lignende vekselstrøm til en belastning.
1.2 the hybrid generator system comprising a housing accommodating:
Figur 1-5 viser tydeligt, at systemet har et hus, som indeholder systemets komponenter.
1.3 - a rechargeable electrical energystorage unit, such as a battery,configured to provide a DC poweroutput,
Paragraf [0005] nævner, at hybridgeneratoren omfatter et eller flere batterier til at lagre strøm.Bl.a. fra paragraf [00027] og fra figur 6, nederst til højre, er det klart, at der er tale om, at batterierne er i et jævnstrømssystem og dermed leverer jævnstrøm.
1.4 - at least a first primary energysource, such as a combustion engine, for charging the rechargeable energy storage unit, and
Paragraf [0005] nævner, at hybridgeneratoren omfatter en forbrændingsmotor og en generator koblet til motoren, og at batterierne modtager og lagrer strøm fra generatoren.Figur 6, i nederste højre del, viser desuden at dieselmotoren driver en generator, der leverer vekselstrøm til en ensretter (“rectifier”) der leverer jævnstrøm bl.a. til batterierne.
1.5 - an inverter unit configured for converting the DC power output from the rechargeable energy
storage unit to the grid-like AC power output,
Paragraf [0005] nævner, at hybridgeneratoren omfatter en inverter, der omformer den lagrede energi fra batterierne til vekselstrøm.
Dette er også vist på figur 6, nederste højre del, der viser, at jævnstrømsoutput fra batterierne er koblet
44
til inverteren, der omformer jævnstrømsinputtet til et vekselstrømsoutput.
wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1.6 1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter unit, and
Paragraf [00029] beskriver, at når batterierne er opladet, så kan motoren slukkes, og batterierne kan da over flere timer sørge for alene at levere den nødvendige strøm til belastningen: “Once the batteries are charged, the engine may be shut off and the batteries may operate the user load for many hours without the generator operating saving substantial fuel, reducing noise, and reducing emissions.”
Det er dermed klart, at i det mindste når batterierne er tilstrækkeligt opladet, så kommer hybridgeneratorens output alene fra batterierne.
1.7 2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
Paragraf [00029] beskriver desuden, at overskydende energi lagres i batterierne: “An embodiment may be able to operate a generator at it most efficient power setting because of an on-board battery storage which may allow excess energy to be stored if the user demand is less than a generator’s optimum operating regime.”
1.8 both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power operation, having peak power requirements,
Paragraf [00049] beskriver, at inverteren kan håndtere belastninger på mellem 300-400% af generatorens formåen. Det er dermed klart, at generatoren er konfigureret både til normal drift og høje belastninger.
1.9 the mobile hybrid generator system characterized in that the at least first primary energy source is dimensioned to the normal mode power requirements, i.e. much smaller than for the peak power requirements
Paragraf [00049] beskriver, at det er fordelagtigt, at generatoren (altså first primary engergy source) er dimensioneret til den gennemsnitlige belastning og ikke til maksimum belastning: “Using an inverter that can surge to 300%-400% of generator rated load in order to start large inductive loads provides non obvious advantages. For example, the generator need only be sized for the average load, not the peak load, thereby saving consider expense in initial purchase cost, and considerable expense in reduced operating costs.”
Det er dermed klart, at Stridspatentets krav 1 ikke er nyt i lyset af US 791, og at Stridspatentet dermed er ugyldigt på grund af manglende nyhed.
45
Det bemærkes, at US 791 blev fremdraget af sagsbehandleren hos EPO i forbindelse med behandlingen af Stridspatentet. Ansøgningen blev fremdraget første gang i forbindelse med søgerapporten for prioritetsansøgningen (bilag H) og senere også nævnt i den internationale søgerapport (bilag I) og i den internationale foreløbige patenterbarhedsvurdering (bilag J). Under sagsbehandlingen er US 791 benævnt “D4”.
I forbindelse med sagsbehandlingen er det dog væsentligt at bemærke, at Hybridgenerator i brev af 28. oktober 2021 (bilag K), som blev indleveret sammen med indleveringen af Patentansøgningen, argumenterede for, at US 791 ikke fratager Stridspatentets krav 1 nyhed, idet US 791, efter Hybridgenerators opfattelse, ikke viser trækkene 1.6-1.8:
1) “the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements,
and during peak power operation, having peak power requirements,”
Sagsbehandleren har ikke i løbet af sagsbehandlingen kommenteret yderligere på US 791, og det er
derfor nærliggende at konkludere, at sagsbehandleren ved en fejl har lagt Hybridgenerators ukorrekte kommentar i brevet af 28. oktober 2021 til grund, og på den baggrund vurderet at krav 1 havde nyhed over US 791.
2.4 Stridspatentet opfindelseshøjde med udgangspunkt i GB 2 493 631 A (“GB 631”)
Det gøres gældende, at hvis domstolen måtte være uenig i, at Stridspatentets krav ikke opfylder nyhedskravet, opfylder det ikke kravet om opfindelseshøjde og også af den årsag kan Stridspatentet ikke danne grundlag for Hybridgenerators anmodning om bevissikring under denne sag.
Denne sag er imidlertid særlig derved at modholdene i GB 928, US 791 og Hybridgenerators egne
produkter ikke blot ligner løsningen i Stridspatentet, men derimod er identisk med løsningen i Stridspatentet. Modholdene er endog inden for samme tekniske område. Det er på den baggrund for så vidt irrelevant og meningsløst at diskutere, om Stridspatentet har opfindelseshøjde, idet det er åbenlyst, at Stridspatentet allerede er ugyldigt som følge af manglende nyhed. Det gøres dog gældende – hvis domstolen ikke er enig i bemærkningerne om manglende nyhed ovenfor – at Stridspatentet i det mindste ikke kan opretholdes som følge af manglende opfindelseshøjde, jf. artikel 56 EPC.
Den relevante vurdering er i den forbindelse, om teknikken beskrevet i Stridspatentet adskiller sig
væsentligt fra den teknik, der var kendt på prioritetstidspunktet for Stridspatentet. Ved denne vurdering tages der udgangspunkt i, hvorvidt teknikken var nærliggende for en fagmand. Ved vurderingen af
46
opfindelseshøjde tages der udgangspunkt i den såkaldte problem and solution approach. PSA-analysen har tre overordnede trin:
a) bestemmelse af “den nærmeste kendte teknik”,
b) opstilling af det “objektive tekniske problem”, der skal løses, og
c) vurdering af om den ansøgte opfindelse, med udgangspunkt i den nærmeste kendte
teknik og det objektive tekniske problem er nærliggende for fagmanden.
Vurderingen af opfindelseshøjde – herunder PSA-analysen i det omfang den er anvendelig i forhold
til de fremdragne modhold – behandles i det følgende.
Ved udvælgelsen af den nærmeste kendte teknik efter PSA-analysen er den første overvejelse, at nærmeste kendte teknik skal have et lignende formål eller en lignende funktion som opfindelsen eller i det mindste tilhøre det samme tekniske område som den ansøgte opfindelse.
Alle de under denne sag fremdragne modhold – inklusive Hybridgenerators egne tidligere produkter er hybridgeneratorer som udviser samme funktion som krav 1 i Stridspatentet. Det vil derfor være rimeligt at tage udgangspunkt i alle de fremdragne modhold som nærmeste kendte teknik.
Fastlæggelsen af det objektive tekniske problem forudsætter, at de tekniske træk ved opfindelsen, der er forskellige fra det, der fremgår af modholdet kan identificeres. Dette er imidlertid reelt ikke muligt i forhold til modholdene i denne sag, idet der er tale om modhold, hvor der ikke ‘mangler noget’ i forhold til løsningen i Stridspatentet, og de modholdene er dermed identiske med Stridspatentet. Det er derfor ikke muligt meningsfuldt at anvende modholdene i forbindelse med en PSA-analyse. Der er således ikke tale om hverken ændringer eller forbedringer på det produkt, som fagmanden skal anvende i forbindelse med løsningen af det objektive tekniske problem.
Det gøres gældende, at det utvivlsomt er nærliggende for fagmanden at finde løsningen i en identisk hybridgenerator. Fagmanden skal således end ikke finde inspiration fra andre områder.
Ved udstedelse af Stridspatentet vurderede sagsbehandleren hos EPO desuden, at Stridspatentets
krav 1 var nyt i forhold til GB 631 (fremlægges som Bilag N), som under sagsbehandlingen er benævnt “D1”, baseret på den kendetegnende del af Stridspatentets krav 1:
“the mobile hybrid generator system characterized in that the at least first primary energy source is dimensioned to the normal mode power requirements, i.e. much smaller than for the peak power
requirements.”
Under udstedelsesproceduren har sagsbehandleren ved flere lejligheder udtrykt, at GB 631 viste alle yderligere træk i krav 1. Blandt andet i den foreløbige internationale patenterbarhedsvurdering (bilag J), og desuden i e-mailkorrespondance med Hybridgenerators patentagent den 31. maj 2024 (fremlægges som
47
Bilag O) og 3. juni 2024 (fremlægges som Bilag P). Det fremgår ikke af sagshistorikken, hvad sagsbehandleren har lagt til grund for at anerkende opfindelseshøjde af det udstedte krav 1.
Hvis vi imidlertid lægger til grund, at GB 631 er nærmeste kendte teknik, og at det adskiller sig fra
opfindelsen ved fraværet af ovennævnte træk, så kan det objektive tekniske problem beskrives som, hvordan der kan skabes et mere bæredygtigt og effektivt generator system.
GB 631 nævner, at “the system 10, may be operated in several modes of operation”, jf. afsnit [0011], og i afsnit [0015] angives, at “the ESS is used to provide power during load spikes” (ESS er i GB 631 en forkortelse for “energy storage system” og altså batteriet, jf. afsnit [0010]). Dermed er fagmanden peget i retning af, at motoren ikke behøver at kunne levere al nødvendig strøm ved peak belastning.
I bilag C1 (ved 11:20-11:35) der omhandler en hybridgenerator, nævnes det specifikt, at motoren, for at spare vægt, ønskes dimensioneret således, at den kun kan dække den nominelle belastning. US 791 (som beskrevet ovenfor) nævner i paragraf [0040], at der kan spares omkostninger både i forbindelse med produktion og brug ved at bruge en motor, der kun er dimensioneret til den gennemsnitlige belastning fremfor maksimum belastning.
Det er dermed klart, at fagmanden, der med udgangspunkt GB 631 søger at løse det objektive tekniske problem at skabe et mere bæredygtigt og effektivt generator system, vil være inspireret af enten fordelen ved en reduceret vægt, som nævnt i bilag C1, og/eller omkostningsbesparelserne, som nævnt i US 791, til at dimensionere motoren til den gennemsnitlige belastning fremfor den maksimale belastning, og dermed foreslå en løsning, der ligger indenfor omfanget af Stridspatentets krav 1.
Det er derfor klart, at Stridspatentets krav 1 ligeledes i det mindste savner opfindelseshøjde med udgangspunkt i GB 631.
Alle de under denne sag fremdragne modhold – inklusive Hybridgenerators egne tidligere produkter – er hybridgeneratorer som udviser samme funktion som krav 1 i Stridspatentet. Det vil derfor være rimeligt at tage udgangspunkt i alle de fremdragne modhold som nærmeste kendte teknik.
Fastlæggelsen af det objektive tekniske problem forudsætter, at de tekniske træk ved opfindelsen, der er forskellige fra det, der fremgår af modholdet kan identificeres. Dette er imidlertid reelt ikke muligt i forhold til modholdene i denne sag, idet der er tale om modhold, hvor der ikke ‘mangler noget’ i forhold til løsningen i Stridspatentet, og de modholdene er dermed identiske med Stridspatentet. Det er derfor ikke muligt meningsfuldt at anvende modholdene i forbindelse med en PSA-analyse. Der er således ikke tale om hverken ændringer eller forbedringer på det produkt, som fagmanden skal anvende i forbindelse med løsningen af det objektive tekniske problem.
Det gøres gældende, at det utvivlsomt er nærliggende for fagmanden at finde løsningen i en identisk hybridgenerator. Fagmanden skal således end ikke finde inspiration fra andre områder.
48
Ved udstedelse af Stridspatentet vurderede sagsbehandleren hos EPO desuden, at Stridspatentets
krav 1 var nyt i forhold til GB 631 (fremlægges som Bilag N), som under sagsbehandlingen er benævnt “D1”, baseret på den kendetegnende del af Stridspatentets krav 1:
“the mobile hybrid generator system characterized in that the at least first primary
energy source is dimensioned to the normal mode power requirements, i.e. much
smaller than for the peak power requirements.”
Under udstedelsesproceduren har sagsbehandleren ved flere lejligheder udtrykt, at GB 631 viste alle yderligere træk i krav 1. Blandt andet i den foreløbige internationale patenterbarhedsvurdering (bilag J), og desuden i e-mailkorrespondance med Hybridgenerators patentagent den 31. maj 2024 (fremlægges som Bilag O) og 3. juni 2024 (fremlægges som Bilag P). Det fremgår ikke af sagshistorikken, hvad sagsbehandleren har lagt til grund for at anerkende opfindelseshøjde af det udstedte krav 1.
Hvis vi imidlertid lægger til grund, at GB 631 er nærmeste kendte teknik, og at det adskiller sig fra
opfindelsen ved fraværet af ovennævnte træk, så kan det objektive tekniske problem beskrives som, hvordan der kan skabes et mere bæredygtigt og effektivt generator system.
GB 631 nævner, at “the system 10, may be operated in several modes of operation”, jf. afsnit [0011], og i afsnit [0015] angives, at “the ESS is used to provide power during load spikes” (ESS er i GB 631 en forkortelse for “energy storage system” og altså batteriet, jf. afsnit [0010]). Dermed er fagmanden peget i retning af, at motoren ikke behøver at kunne levere al nødvendig strøm ved peak belastning.
I bilag C1 (ved 11:20-11:35) der omhandler en hybridgenerator, nævnes det specifikt, at motoren, for at spare vægt, ønskes dimensioneret således, at den kun kan dække den nominelle belastning. US 791 (som beskrevet ovenfor) nævner i paragraf [0040], at der kan spares omkostninger både i forbindelse med produktion og brug ved at bruge en motor, der kun er dimensioneret til den gennemsnitlige belastning fremfor maksimum belastning.
Det er dermed klart, at fagmanden, der med udgangspunkt GB 631 søger at løse det objektive tekniske problem at skabe et mere bæredygtigt og effektivt generator system, vil være inspireret af enten fordelen ved en reduceret vægt, som nævnt i bilag C1, og/eller omkostningsbesparelserne, som nævnt i US 791, til at dimensionere motoren til den gennemsnitlige belastning fremfor den maksimale belastning, og dermed foreslå en løsning, der ligger indenfor omfanget af Stridspatentets krav 1.
Det er derfor klart, at Stridspatentets krav 1 ligeledes i det mindste savner opfindelseshøjde med udgangspunkt i GB 631.
2.5 Hybridgenerator kan ikke påberåbe sig et subsidiært kravsæt
Hybridgenerator gør i processkriftet af 22. oktober 2024 gældende, at Stridspatentet som minimum er gyldigt på baggrund af en kombination af krav 1, krav 14 og en del af krav 15, og at kendelsen skal ændres i overensstemmelse med dette.
49
Det bemærkes, at det bevis, som kræves for Stridspatentets gyldighed under en sag om foreløbige
retsmidler ikke vedrører spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Stridspatentet kunne have været udstedt i en ændret form, men spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Stridspatentet er gyldigt i sin nuværende version. Det er således ikke muligt inden for rammerne af en sag om bevissikring at påberåbe sig en ændret version af Stridspatentet. Stridspatentets gyldighed skal derimod lægges til grund som udstedt – her som udstedt af EPO. Det følger direkte af praksis fra UPC.
Det bemærkes i øvrigt, at det foreslåede ændrede krav heller ikke er gyldigt, da disse træk også kan
genfindes i de nævnte modhold, jf. ovenfor.
2.6 Sammenfattende om ugyldighed (manglende nyhed og opfindelseshøjde)
Som det fremgår ovenfor, opfylder Stridspatentets krav 1 ikke betingelserne for nyhed, jf. Artikel
52(1) og 54(2) EPC eller betingelserne for opfindelseshøjde, jf. Artikel 56 EPC. Stridspatentet kan
derfor ikke anses som værende gyldigt, og kan på den baggrund ikke danne grundlag for en kendelse om bevissikring. Alternativt medfører det i det mindste at formodningen for gyldighed er svækket i en sådan grad, at Stridspatentet ikke kan danne grundlag for anmodningen om bevissikring.
Hybridgenerator har i sin sagsfremstilling anført at også trækkene i underkrav 5 (brændstoftank og
forbrændingsmotor), underkrav 6 (LTO-batteri), underkrav 7 (solceller) og underkrav 13 (hybridsystemet er sat på en trailer) antages at være udvist af Stridsprodukterne. Hybridgenerator påberåber sig udelukkende krav 1 til støtte for sin anmodning, og det bemærkes derfor blot, at også disse træk er kendte fra Hybridgenerators egne produkter allerede inden prioritetsdatoen (jf. bilag A-D) samt i øvrigt fra flere af de fremdragne modhold, fx bilag F og bilag L.
3 Enten er der ingen krænkelse og ellers er Stridspatentet ugyldigt
På baggrund af ovenstående gøres det gældende, at Stridsprodukterne ikke udgør en krænkelse af
Stridspatentet særligt set i lyset af den foretagne indsnævring af Stridspatentet og Stridsprodukternes tekniske sammensætning og funktionsmåde.
Hvis domstolen alligevel når den konklusion, at Stridsprodukterne udviser alle kravselementer i
Stridspatentets krav 1, så er konsekvensen, at Stridspatentet er ugyldigt. Det skyldes, at Hybridgenerators argumentation med hensyn til den påståede krænkelse er baseret på en fortolkning af krav 1, som allerede er offentliggjort af Hybridgenerator selv forud for prioritetsdatoen, jf. bilag A-D, samt beskrevet i den kendte teknik, jf. bilag F og G.
Det er derfor ikke muligt, at Stridspatentet både kan være gyldigt og samtidigt omfatte en hybridgenerator, som er identisk med eller ikke adskiller sig væsentligt fra de hybridgeneratorer, som er beskrevet i de citerede patentansøgninger beskrevet ovenfor, og fremlagt som bilag F og bilag L eller fra Hybridgenerators egne hybridgeneratorer som vist i bilag A-D.
50
Enten udgør Stridsprodukterne derfor ikke en krænkelse af Stridspatentet og alternativt – hvis domstolen
ikke følger den argumentation – så ligger det fast, at Stridspatentet er ugyldigt som følge af manglende
nyhed…”
Rekvisitis processkrift af 18. november 2024:
”… SUPPLERENDE SAGSFREMSTILLING OG ANBRINGENDER
1 Stridsprodukterne krænker ikke Stridspatentets krav 1
Som det allerede er redegjort for i anmodningen om revurdering af kendelsen om bevissikring og i
processkriftet af 29. oktober 2024 udviser Stridsprodukterne ikke træk 1.6-1.8 i Stridspatentets krav 1.
Koblingen mellem motor/jævnstrømsgenerator, batterielement og inverter sker derimod, som det er
udførligt beskrevet i processkriftet af 29. oktober 2024, illustreret i bilag T og dokumenteret med den
skriftlige vidneerklæring fra i bilag U.
Hybridgenerator skriver i sit processkrift af 8. november 2024 (side 4):
“Det bestrides ikke af rekvirenten, at den følgende løsning [som vist i bilag T] beskrevet i rekvisiti
processkrift adskiller sig fra stridspatentet”.
Bilag Q og R viser desuden fotos af forbindelsen mellem jævnstrømsgenerator, batterier og inverter i
Stridsprodukterne. I bilag S ses 3D-visualiseringer af koblingerne i Stridsprodukterne.
Bilag Q og R viser en MPU3000 fra HGSystem. Der er frem til dato alene udviklet og samlet ét enkelt
eksemplar – en prototype – af en MPU3000, og det eksemplar blev færdigsamlet i foråret 2024; altså forud
for datoen for bevissikringen. Det kan således afvises, at der er sket videreudviklinger af Stridsprodukterne
(MPU1000, MPU2000 og/eller MPU3000) efter bevissikringen.
Hybridgenerators gisninger (på baggrund af informationen om øget peak load i bilag 64 og 64) om,
at bilag Q og R skulle vise en helt nyudviklet MPU3000, som ikke er genstand for sagen er derfor ikke
korrekt. Den øgede peak load opnås derimod ved konfigurere produktet med f.eks. et større batteri eller ved
at udvide antallet af invertermoduler. Det bemærkes dog, at der endnu ikke er produceret et eksemplar
med den nævnte øgede peak, som er beskrevet i bilag 64 og 65. Brugen af ordet ‘nyudviklede’ i bilag 65
henviser til, at MPU3000 er HGSystems nyeste udviklede produkt, og at produktet er færdigudviklet i 2024
(men forud for bevissikringssagen), og nu er klar til produktion.
Som Bilag V fremlægges en skriftlig vidneerklæring fra der har bistået HGSystem
med udviklingen af Stridsprodukterne. bekræfter, at forbindelsen mellem
jævnstrømsgenerator, batterier og inverter i Stridsprodukterne er som illustreret i bilag T samt at alle
Stridsprodukterne (MPU1000, MPU2000 og MPU3000) fungerer efter samme princip og med
51
samme elektriske forbindelse fra motor/DC-generator via to DC busbars til såvel batteri som inverter. Det
bekræftes videre i vidneerklæringen fra at det eksemplar af MPU3000, som er vist i bilag Q
og R er samlet i april og maj 2024.
Hybridgenerator påstår i sit processkrift af 8. november 2024, at vidneerklæringen fra ikke
understøttes af beviser. Det er ikke korrekt. For det første udgør den skriftlige vidneerklæring i sig selv netop
et sådant bevis. For det andet ignorer Hybridgenerator eksistensen af bilag Q og R, som netop
dokumenterer forbindelsen mellem jævnstrømsgenerator, batterier og inverter i en MPU3000 (som jf. de
skriftlige vidneerklæringer fra i bilag U og i bilag V er opbygget og fungerer på
samme vis som MPU1000 og MPU2000). I bilag S er desuden fremlagt 3Dvisualiseringer af koblingerne i
Stridsprodukterne som også dokumenterer forbindelsen mellem jævnstrømsgenerator, batterier og inverter.
2 Hybridgenerators gisninger om en mindre effektiv løsning
Hele Hybridgenerators sag bygger på et postulat om, at en anden løsning end den, som er beskrevet i
Stridspatentets krav 1, skulle være mindre effektiv end Stridspatentets løsning (og derfor “må”
Stridsprodukterne have benyttet Stridspatentets løsning). Hybridgenerator har imidlertid ikke nærmere
konkretiseret, hvorfor det skulle forholde sig sådan, at den løsning er “mere effektiv” end andre løsninger.
Tværtimod opnås den bedste effektivitet ved netop at lade inverteren bruge strømmen direkte fra
motor/DC generator, så energi ikke unødigt spildes ved først at skulle lagres i batterierne.
Den skriftlige vidneerklæring fremlagt af Hybridgenerator som bilag 66, som er udarbejdet af
Hybridgenerator, beskriver da heller ikke hvorfor Hybridgenerator og
har den opfattelse, at løsningen anvendt af HGSystem ‘ikke på samme måde [kan] drives i den mest
effektive tilstand’, og hvorfor det i givet fald skulle tyde på, at HGSystem – på trods af beskrivelsen og
dokumentationen for den anvendte løsning i såvel processkrifter, bilag og de skriftlige vidneerklæringer fra
og – alligevel anvender den løsning, som er beskrevet i Stridspatentet.
3 vidneerklæring (bilag 66)
beskylder i sin vidneerklæring HGSystem for at have fremstillet hybridgeneratoren i bilag Q og R
‘til lejligheden’. Årsagen skal findes i analyse af den årstid, som er vist på billederne.
konkluderer, at billederne på side 1, 6 og 7 er taget i efteråret (efter bevissikringen), idet træernes blade er
faldet af og resterende er orange, og at hækken mangler blade og de resterende blade er orange. Billedet på
side 8 konkluderer er taget i foråret eller sommeren, hvilket efter opfattelse ikke
stemmer med, at billedet på side 8 viser et senere trin i samlingen af Stridsproduktet. Den konklusion
bunder i misforståelse fra
Billederne på side 1, 6 og 7 er således ikke taget i efteråret, men i foråret 2024 før bøgen er sprunget ud.
Det stemmer, at billedet på side 8 er taget senere – nemlig i maj 2024 – og viser således korrekt et senere
trin i samlingen, som er foretaget efter bøgehæk er sprunget ud.
52
anfører (angiveligt på grund af at maskinen er flyttet), at der ikke er grund til tro, at det
er den samme hybridgenerator, som vises på side 8 og side 9 i bilag Q. redegør dog ikke
nærmere for, hvorfor ‘der ingen grund [er] til at tro at det er samme maskine som vist på side 8.’
Der henvises til den skriftlige vidneerklæring i bilag V fra som dokumenterer, at (i) der kun er
fremstillet ét eksemplar af MPU3000, og (ii) samlingen af prototypen (som vist i bilag Q) blev påbegyndt i
april 2024 og var fuldt samlet i maj 2024.
Det er dermed klart, at Stridsprodukterne ikke udviser samtlige træk i krav 1 i Stridspatentet, og det er
ligeledes klart, at Hybridgenerators begrundelser (herunder om at MPU3000 modellen vist i bilag Q og R
skulle være en nyudvikling foretaget efter bevissikringen) heller ikke dokumenterer, at det skulle være
tilfældet. Tværtimod. Forsøget på at så tvivl om udformningen af Stridsprodukterne er modbevist af de
skriftlige vidneerklæringer fra i bilag U og i bilag V. De erklærer begge, at alle
Stridsprodukterne fungerer efter samme princip og med samme elektriske forbindelse fra motor/DC-
generator via to DC busbars til såvel batteri som inverter. Dette svarer til illustrationen i bilag T, som
Hybridgenerator i processkriftet af 8. november 2024 bekræfter ikke udgør en krænkelse af
Stridspatentet…”
Processkrift af 22. oktober 2024 fra rekvirenten:
”…
3. Rekvirentens bemærkninger til punkterne i rekvisiti anmodning om revurdering
Rekvisiti anmodning om revurdering af Domstolens kendelse giver rekvirenten anledning til
følgende bemærkninger:
3.1. Aktiviteter relateret til det norske selskab HGSystem AS (pkt. 1.1 i anmodningen om
revurdering)
Rekvirenten bestrider ikke, at aktiviteter i det norske selskab HGSystem AS, som finder sted i Norge, ikke er
omfattet af sagen.
Eftersom det ubestridt, at produktion af stridsprodukterne finder sted på i Danmark,
forekommer rekvisiti bemærkninger i pkt. 1.1 i anmodningen om revurderingen at være uden relevans for
afgørelsen af, om kendelsen skal ændres eller ophæves.
Rekvirenten er enig i, at eventuelle oplysninger om aktiviteter i det bevissikrede materiale, der alene
relaterer sig til HGSystem AS’ aktiviteter i Norge, ikke skal medtages i bevissikringsrapporten.
3.2. Påstået forsøg på at miskreditere (pkt.1.2 i anmodningen om revurdering)
Rekvisiti anførsel om, at ”flere af bilagene har alene til formål at tegne et ukorrekt billede af/ miskreditere
bestrides.
53
Bilag 37 er fremlagt for at gøre Domstolen opmærksom på, at er i besiddelse af en
makulator, som med egne ord betragter som sin ”nummer et favorit kontor maskine”, og at
der dermed var en reel risiko for, at relevante beviser vil blive slettet, hvis rekvisitus skulle have
forudgående varsel om gennemførelse af bevissikringsforretningen.
Navnet på personen bag kommentaren ”slette alle spor” til opslag er anonymiseret af
rekvirenten, fordi det er uden relevans for sagen, hvem personen er. At denne anonymisering som påstået
af rekvisitus er sket for at give det fejlagtige indtryk, at det ”det skulle være selv”, der har
kommenteret på sit eget opslag, er der efter rekvirentens opfattelse intet belæg for.
3.3. Om beviskravet til patentkrænkelse (pkt. 1.3 og 5 i anmodningen om revurdering)
Betingelsen for gennemførelsen af bevissikring er, at der fremføres ”et rimeligt tilgængeligt bevismateriale”
til støtte for, at et patent er blevet krænket eller vil blive krænket, jf. UPC-aftalens artikel 60, stk. 1.
Begrebet ”rimeligt tilgængeligt bevismateriale” er gentaget i flere retsakter om beskyttelse og håndhævelse
af immaterielle rettigheder, herunder TRIPS-aftalens artikel 43 stk. 1 og EuropaParlamentets og Rådets
Direktiv 2004/48/EF af 29 april 2004 om håndhævelsen af intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheders
(”Retshåndhævelsesdirektivet”) artikel 7, stk. 1.
Eftersom et hovedformål med bevissikring er at sikre bevis eksistensen af en patentkrænkelse, kan der ikke
stilles som betingelse, at krænkelsen godtgøres. Det fremgår af praksis fra UPC, at indicier kan udgøre
tilstrækkeligt bevis for, at betingelsen er opfyldt.
Ved ORD_9825/2024 af 1. marts 2024 i sag UPC_CFI_397/2023 har den franske lokale afdeling i Paris af
førsteinstansdomstolen af den fælles patentdomstol afsagt kendelse i en sag, der tilsvarende nærværende
sag angik behandling af en anmodning om revurdering af en kendelse om tilladelse af gennemførsel af
bevissikring (bilag 60).
I sagen fandt Domstolen, at kravet i UPC-aftalens artikel 60, stk. 1, om at der skal fremføres ”et rimeligt
tilgængeligt bevismateriale” skal fortolkes således, at "the application should not be based on simple
assumptions or allegations that are not supported by sufficient evidence, the aim being to gather all the
means to prove the alleged infringement.” […] “In support of its application, particularly in the context of ex
parte proceedings, the applicant has the obligation to present the facts fairly, without distorting their
integrity.”
I ovennævnte sag udgjorde bevismaterialet én brochure, der viste stridsproduktet samt udskrift fra en
offentligt tilgængelige hjemmeside, der ligeledes viste stridsproduktet. Domstolen fandt, at dette materiale
tilsammen udgjorde et rimeligt tilgængeligt bevismateriale til brug for gennemførsel af bevissikring.
Det rimeligt tilgængelige bevismateriale i nærværende sag er opsummeret i rekvirentens kravmatrix i pkt.
2.2. i anmodningen om bevissikring.
Domstolen har allerede vurderet, at rekvirentens beviser og kravmatrix udgør et sådant rimeligt
tilgængeligt bevismateriale til støtte for, at stridspatentet er krænket eller vil blive krænket. Det er herefter
op til rekvisitus at afkræfte den sandsynliggjorte krænkelse.
54
I pkt. 1.3 i sin anmodning om revurdering argumenterer rekvisitus for, at rekvirentens beviser for krænkelse
ud fra en overordnet betragtning ikke er tilstrækkelige, uden dog at fremlægge noget bevis for, at
rekvirentens krænkelsesvurdering er forkert. Det gøres derfor gældende, at indholdet af pkt. 1.3 ikke kan
udgøre et grundlag for hverken ophævelse eller ændring af kendelsen
I pkt. 5 konkretiserer rekvisitus, hvorfor stridsprodukterne efter rekvisiti opfattelse ikke udgør en krænkelse
af stridspatentet. Det anføres her, at stridsprodukterne ikke opfylder følgende krav i stridspatentet:
1) “the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the
inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage
unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power
operation, having peak power requirements,”
Rekvisitus anfører, at stridsprodukterne adskiller sig fra de anførte træk, idet de anvender en
forbrændingsmotor til at drive en jævnstrømsgenerator (DC), og at den jævnstrøm, der genereres, bruges
dels af inverteren til at levere et AC-output, hvis hybridgeneratoren er belastet, og dels til at oplade
batterierne i de tilfælde, at belastningen er mindre end outputtet fra jævnstrømsgeneratoren.
Hvis stridsprodukterne rent faktisk fungerer som anført, ville det have været en simpel opgave for rekvisitus
at dokumentere dette.
På baggrund af rekvisiti egen markedsføring må det have formodningen imod sig, at rekvisitus som påstået
anvender en løsning, som er teknisk ineffektiv i sammenligning med den løsning, som var
med til at udvikle hos rekvirenten.
Et af hovedformålene med sikringen af beviser er netop at fremskaffe dokumentation for krænkelsens
eksistens. Det må derfor komme rekvisitus bevismæssigt til skade, at de ikke har fremlagt dokumentation
for rigtigheden af den tekniske redegørelse, som kan modbevise den sandsynliggjorte krænkelse af
stridspatentet.
Dette synspunkt understøttes ligeledes af kendelsen i sag ORD_9825/2024. Rekvisitus i sagen gjorde
gældende, at stridsproduktet ikke skulle krænke stridspatentet, idet stridsproduktet ikke skulle ”reproduce
all the features of claim 1” i stridspatentet. Hertil udtalte Domstolen: ”However, it is a matter of preserving
evidence at an early stage of the proceedings. The Court rightly considered that the applicant had provided
sufficient available reasonable evidence of the alleged infringement against [rekvisitus] by marketing the
[stridsproduktet], a very similar product to the [originalprodukt], [rekvirentens] product which embodies the
patent at issue.”
3.4. Om gyldigheden af stridspatentet (pkt. 3 og 4 i anmodningen om revurdering)
3.4.1. Formodningen for stridspatentets gyldighed (pkt. 3 i anmodningen om revurdering)
Rekvisiti anførsel om, at der ikke gælder en formodning for stridspatentets gyldighed, bestrides. Særligt i
sager om foreløbige foranstaltninger som sikring af beviser og midlertidige forbud gælder der en stærk
formodning for gyldigheden af et udstedt patent.
Dette bekræftes af følgende afgørelser fra Domstolen:
55
1. ORD_500982/2023 af 14. juni 2023, afsagt af den italienske lokale afdeling i Milano af
førsteinstansdomstolen af den fælles patentdomstol (engelsk oversættelse via værktøjet Deepl
vedhæftet som bilag 61).
2. ORD_587064/2023 af 14. november 2023, afsagt af den franske lokale afdeling i Paris af
førsteinstansdomstolen af den fælles patentdomstol, (bilag 62).
3. Den som bilag 60 fremlagte ORD_9825/2024 af 1. marts 2024
I forbindelse med anmodningen om revurdering af kendelsen om tilladelse af gennemførsel af bevissikring,
som var genstand for ORD_9825/2024, udfordrede rekvisitus i sagen det af sagen omhandlede stridspatent
og gjorde gældende, at stridspatentet skulle mangle nyhed og opfindelseshøjde.
Domstolen fandt i sagen, at som følge af, at stridspatentet i sagen var ”in force and there are no pending
proceedings challenging its validity”, skulle stridspatentet betragtes som værende gyldigt, ligesom
Domstolen fandt, at der var ”no reason for the Court to examine further the validity of the patent in
question at this stage of the proceedings”.
Det gøres derfor gældende, at Domstolen ikke i henhold til hverken UPC-aftalen eller procesreglementet
under en sag om sikring af bevismateriale har mulighed for at tage stilling til spørgsmålet om gyldigheden af
et stridsstridspatent, herunder omfanget af stridspatentets gyldighed.
Formodningen for et stridspatentets gyldighed, særlig i sager om midlertidige foranstaltninger, følger også
af dansk retspraksis, herunder Østre Landsrets kendelse af den 15. december 2023 i de sambehandlede
sager BS-5667/2023-OLR (Biogen International GmbH og Biogen Denmark A/S mod Viatris ApS), BS-
7310/2023-OLR (Sandoz A/S mod Biogen International GmbH og Biogen Danmark A/S og BS-27713/2023-
OLR (Sandoz A/S mod Biogen International GmbH og Biogen Denmark A/S).
Det gøres derfor gældende, at eftersom stridspatentet er i kraft samt at der ikke er nedlagt indsigelser mod
stridspatentet, skal Domstolen lægge til grund, at stridspatentet er gyldigt sådan som dette er udstedt.
Subsidiært gøres det gældende, at der er en formodning for, at stridspatentet i det mindste vil blive
opretholdt i begrænset form, jf. pkt. 3.4.2. nedenfor.
3.4.2. De fremlagte nyhedsmodhold (pkt. 4.1 og 4.2 i anmodningen om revurdering)
Rekvisitus har citeret en tidligere version af rekvirentens hybridgenerator, som adskiller sig fra den
patenterede hybridgenerator. Den tidligere version har to arbejdsindstillinger, som består i henholdsvis:
- En ”inverter mode”, hvor kraft trækkes via inverter, og hvor denne kraft er ”gridlike”; og
- En ”boost mode”, hvor motoren arbejder i serie med inverter til peak loads. Dermed bidrager både
motoren og inverteren direkte til outputtet under peak loads.
Dette understøttes af B1-B3, som beskriver disse to modes, og C1-C2, hvor forklarer (10:20-
10:40): ”So, the other part we have, if I'm listing the benefits and all, it's very clean power because we run
the inverter power 100%, like an ups. The reason we have tested both, we can run the power through the
inverter and do a power boost.”
56
Med andre ord forklares det af at maskinen har en inverter mode og en boost mode.
forklarer efterfølgende, at der er problemer ved boost mode, som fx består i, at man ikke får
”grid-like” kraft ud. Herefter forklarer fordelene ved inverter mode frem for boost mode og
dermed den optimale brug af den præsenterede hybridgenerator.
nævnte problem med boost mode er netop, hvad patent EP4238202B1 løser med
nedenstående tekniske træk:
“wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the
inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage
unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak
power operation, having peak power requirements,”
Den tidligere version af rekvirentens hybridgenerator har de beskrevne træk 1) og 2) under ”normal mode
operation” men ikke under ”peak power operation”, som svarer til den omtalte ”boost mode”.
Rekvisitus skriver i kravmatricen på side 8 andensidste række ”Det er klart fra Bilag C1, at ovenstående er
gældende både ved peak power og nominel load. Peak power er, ved 7:30-7:40, nævnt at kunne være
omkring 180 kW i et par sekunder, mens den nominelle belastning, ved 11:20-11:35, er nævnt til at være
væsentlig lavere, og at motoren kun skal være stor nok til at klare den nominelle belastning. Disse svarer
derfor til hhv. peak power operation og normal mode operation.”
Dette er ikke korrekt, og rekvisitus forglemmer, at både 1) og 2) skal være til stede for både peak power
operation og normal mode operation.
Ved 7:30-7:40 beskrives det, at peak power er 180 kW, men det nævnes ikke, hvilke enheder som bidrager
til peak power. I lyset af hele præsentation, er det tydeligt, at der er tale om boost mode
med både motor og inverter power.
11:20-11:35 beskriver ikke, at den nominelle belastning er væsentlig lavere end peak power.
anfører: ”we don’t want a generator that is big enough for the total load”. Der er intet i
præsentationen, som understøtter, at total load er den i stridspatentet beskrevne peak load.
Desuden beskriver i 11:20-11:35 i præsentationen en anden udførelsesform af en
hybridgenerator, hvor batterierne er en buffer til motoren: ”the secondary problem is the weight is a
problem we don't want a generator that is big enough for the total load or even half we need maybe one
that is one third for only to cover the nominal load over time the rest the battery is the buffer.”.
I citatet beskriver at batterierne er en buffer til motorens kraft, dvs. energien fra batterierne
kun bruges når belastningen når over nominel belastning – dette er komplet modsat af genstanden for
stridspatentet, som beskriver “the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the
rechargeable energy storage unit”.
57
Sammenfattende følger det af ovenstående, at stridspatentets krav 1 adskiller sig fra C1 ved, at C1 ikke
beskriver følgende træk:
wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the
inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage
unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak
power operation, having peak power requirements,
the mobile hybrid generator system characterized in that the at least first primary energy source is
dimensioned to the normal mode power requirements, i.e. much smaller than for the peak power
requirements.”
Dermed er stridspatentet nyt i forhold til C1-C2, selv hvis det kombineres med B1-B3.
Det bemærkes, at rekvisitus alene har citeret A1-A2 og D1 uden at benytte dem i et angreb på stridspatents
krav. Det gøres for god ordens skyld gældende, at stridspatentets krav 1 prima facie adskiller sig i det
mindste fra A1-A2 samt D1 ved ovennævnte tekniske træk.
Ingen af de citerede dokumenter A1-D1 er derfor foregribende for patenterbarhed ifølge Art. 52 EPC.
Subsidiært kravsæt
Hvis Domstolen trods det anførte finder, at der fandtes en offentliggørelse eller en kombination af
offentliggørelser, der var foregribende for patenterbarheden af krav 1, vil MPU 1000, MPU 2000, MPU 3000
som anført i bevissikringsanmodningen stadig krænke flere af de afhængige krav.
En kombination af krav 1, krav 14 og del af krav 15 beskriver, at den første primære energikilde omfatter en
DC spændingsgenerator til at lave jævnstrøm, hvor denne DC spændingsgenerator drives af en
forbrændingsmotor og oplader batterierne. Der henvises til subsidiært kravsæt med ændringsmarkeringer,
som fremlægges som bilag 63.
Ingen af de citerede patentskrifter under den europæiske sagsbehandling eller de af rekvisitus fremlagte
modhold beskriver en hybridgenerator med forbrændingsmotor, der driver en DC spændingsgenerator til at
lave jævnstrøm kun til opladning af batterier.
I C1, 14:25-14:35, forklarer at den beskrevne løsning ikke er bundet til 50 Hz eller 60 Hz:
”Out of that, we are not bound to the 50hz or 60hz on the engine, meaning 1500 RPM is not often the best
choice for a motor to run on.”.
Det er dermed tydeligt fra C1, at den beskrevne løsning inkluderer en vekselstrømsgenerator (alternator)
som danner AC strøm.
Dermed adskiller det subsidiære kravsæt sig fra C1-C2 yderligere ved at indeholde følgende træk:
58
“wherein the at least first primary energy source comprises at least one DC voltage generator, such that the output from the first primary energy source is DC power, and wherein the DC voltage generator is driven by a combustion engine.”
Det gøres i forlængelse heraf gældende, at i det tilfælde, at Domstolen under nærværende sag, trods det i pkt. 3.4.1. anførte måtte finde det godtgjort, at krav 1 i stridspatentet som dette er udstedt ikke vil kunne opretholdes, skal kendelsen om bevissikring opretholdes med de fornødne ændringer, fordi det har formodningen for sig, at patentet fortsat vil være gyldigt i den begrænsede form.
Som det også fremgår af rekvisiti anmodning om revurdering har stridsprodukterne DC-motorer. Dermed vil stridsprodukterne krænke det subsidiære kravsæt, jf. følgende kravmatrix:
Subsidiær krav 1 Stridsprodukterne MPU 1000/2000/3000 Træk tilstede?
A mobile hybrid generator system for providing grid-like AC power output to a load at off-grid locations,
Reference 1* og 3* viser et hybridgeneratorsystem trukket af en bil. Reference 2* nævner at MPU 1000 er ”Super Mobil, løftepunkter til kran, gaffel kanaler, gaffel kanaler, eller trailer træk med B kørekort”. Dermed er hybridgeneratorsystem tydeligvis mobil.Reference 2 nævner ”24 kVA AC out” hvilket er et netlignende vekselstrømsoutput.Et netværkslignende vekselstrømsoutput er teknisk nødvendigt for at hybridgeneratorsystemet skal kunne drive alle almindelige elektriske enheder, da elektriske enheder er designede til specifikke vekselstrømsoutput
Ja
the hybrid generator system comprising a
housing accommodating:
Reference 2 henviser til at ”designet følger MPU 2000/3000 familien”. Reference 4* viser i tabellen første række, at hver
MPU har en trailer og et hus jf. billede og angivelser af ”Unit size”.
Ja
- a rechargeableelectrical energystorage unit, such as abattery, configured toprovide a DC poweroutput
Reference 2 nævner et 24 kWh LTO-batteri.LTO batterier er specifikt nævnt flere gange i EP4238202, se [0026], [0031], [0049] samt krav 6 (lithium-titanate battery unit).]
Ja
- at least a first primaryenergy source, suchas a combustionengine,
Reference 2 nævner 380 L diesel tank. Ja
59
for chargingthe rechargeableenergy storage unit,and
Derudover omtales ”kompakt Stage V” motor fra Cat[erpillar]. Cat er en velkendt producent af dieselmotorer. Se nedenstående link for et eksempel på en stage V dieselmotor fra CAT:
https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/powersystems/industrial/industrial-diesel-power-units/118940.html
(bilag 59).
- an inverter unitconfigured forconverting the DCpower output from therechargeable energystorage unit to the gridlike AC power output,
Reference 1 – nævner en 144 kVA inverter nominal output og 215 kW peak performance.
Jf. reference 4 anføres det, at MPU 3000 har en nominel kVA på 144 kVA og en peak performance på 216 kW. Dermed viser reference 1 en MPU 3000.
Reference 2 er MPU 1000 og de nævnte værdier 24 kVA AC out og 45 kW stemmer overens med tabellen i reference 4
Ja
wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1) the grid-like ACpower output isprovided only from therechargeable energystorage unit via theinverter unit, and
følge reference 2 leveres der ”24 kVA AC out” dvs. MPU 1000 leverer 24 kVA vekselstrøm.Det er overvejende sandsynligt at den netværkslignende vekselstrøm kun er leveret af batteri og inverter, fordi et alternativ hvor dieselmotoren også bidrager til den netværkslignende vekselstrøm vil kræve at dieselmotoren opererer ved en korrekt omdrejningshastighed OG i fase med inverteren. Dette vil dels være en kompliceret løsning men det vil også sænke dieselmotorens effektivitet imod ønsket fra HGsystems.
Ja
2) the output from theprimary energy source
s only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
Reference 2 nævner at Stage V motor fra Cat[erpillar] står for ladning. Det er tydeligt fra referencerne, at hybridsystemet er
særligt effektivt. Det er kun muligt for en dieselmotor at være effektiv ved visse omdrejningshastigheder. Hvis dieselmotoren (primary energy source) benyttes til direkte at levere netværkslignende vekselstrøm så skal en 4 cylinders dieselmotor operere ved 1500 omdrejninger, men der er en typisk dieselmotor ikke effektiv. Se EP4238202 – [0022], linie 5-9:“the engine + generator is connected to the load, 50 Hz requires an engine speed of around 1500 RPM with a four pole generator. But a typical diesel engine does not operate efficiently at 1500 RPM.”.Enhver anden konfiguration vil give en mindre effektiv mobil hybridgenerator.
Ja
60
Patentets princip er udviklet af
EP4238202.
Det er derfor overvejende sandsynligt, at det er taget med over i
nye selskaber, da den eneste måde at forbedre
brændstofeffektiviteten på er ved at sikre, at motoren opererer ved det
mest energibesparende omdrejningshastigheder.
- both during
normalmode
operation,having
normal modepower
requirements,and
during peak
poweroperation,
having peakpower
requirements
Det er tydeligt fra reference 4 række tre at hver MPU har en peak
KW[Peak power] og en Nom, kVA [Nominal], hvilket svarer til hhv. peak
power operation og normal mode operation.
Ja
the mobile hybrid
generator system
characterized in
that
the at least first
primary energy
source
is dimensioned to
the
normal mode
power
requirements, i.e.
much smaller than
for
the peak power
requirements
MPU 1000 har jf. reference 4 en ladningseffekt på 12,5 kW og
peakeffekten er 45 kW. Dermed er peakeffekten 3,6 gange større end
ladningseffekt på 12,5 kW.
Ja
wherein the at
least first primary
energy source
comprises at least
one DC voltage
generator, such
that the output
from the
Reference 2 nævner 380 L diesel tank.
Reference 2 omtales ”kompakt Stage V” motor fra Cat[erpillar]. Cat er
en velkendt producent af dieselmotorer. Bilag 44 viser et eksploderet
view af HGsystems hybridgenerator; her ses en Caterpillar motor, som
også kan ses på CATs hjemmeside:
https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/powersystems/industrial/in
dustrial-diesel-power-units/118940.html
(bilag 59)
Ja
61
wherein the DC
voltage generator is
driven by a
combustion engine.
Reference 2 nævner 380 L diesel tank.
Derudover omtales ”kompakt Stage V” motor fra Cat[erpillar]. Cat er en
velkendt producent af dieselmotorer. Se nedenstående link for et
eksempel på en stage V dieselmotor fra CAT:
https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/powersystems/industrial/in
dustrial-diesel-power-units/118940.html
(bilag 59)
Ja
Som følge heraf gøres det subsidiært til påstanden om opretholdelse af Domstolens kendelse om
bevissikring gældende, at kendelsen skal ændres i overensstemmelse med ovenstående.
3.5. Om betingelserne for bevissikring i relation til de enkelte subjekter (pkt. 7 i anmodningen
om revurdering)
3.5.1. HGSystem
I anmodningen om revurdering er det ikke bestridt, at HGSystem er involveret i hvert fald nogle af de
aktiviteter i relation til stridsprodukterne, som rekvirenten har redegjort for i sin anmodning om
bevissikring. Det er derfor ikke bestridt, at rekvirentens anmodning med rette er rettet mod HGSystem, hvis
Domstolen finder, at der foreligger et rimeligt tilgængeligt bevismateriale til støtte for, at stridsprodukterne
udgør en krænkelse af stridspatentet.
3.5.2. Infotech Concept, HGSystem Holding, Infotech Holding og
De øvrige subjekter er primært inddraget i sagen af følgende årsager:
-
- Rekvirenten har ikke forud for indleveringen af bevissikringsanmodningen nogen mulighed for at
gøre sig bekendt med, hvilket af de fem subjekter, som eksempelvis de PC’er, som befinder sig på
adressen, formelt tilhører.
-
- Der er en begrundet antagelse om, at Infotech Concept og personligt er direkte
involveret i de omhandlede krænkelser.
Det bemærkes, at nærværende sag alene omhandler spørgsmålet om sikring af beviser for de pågældende
subjekters eventuelle involvering i erhvervsmæssige aktiviteter i relation til stridsprodukterne. Findes der
62
ikke at være sådanne beviser i relation til en eller flere af subjekterne, er der intet at udlevere til
rekvirenten.
Findes inddragelsen af Infotech Concept, HGSystem Holding, Infotech Holding og
uberettiget, vil det skabe en præcedens, som giver en nem adgang for krænkere af patentrettigheder til at
omgå muligheden for gennemførelse af bevissikring, hvilket vil udhule formålet med retsmidlet i UPC-aftalens
artikel 60. Det kan efter rekvirentens klare opfattelse ikke antages at være hensigten.
Det gøres derfor gældende, at betingelsen i procesreglementets regel 192, stk. 2, litra c opfyldt.
Under gennemførelsen af bevissikringsforretningen fremkom der ikke oplysninger, der gav anledning til at
antage, at materiale angående de omhandlede krænkelser eller PC’er på adressen tilhørte HGSystem
Holding eller Infotech Holding. Rekvirenten fandt derfor ikke anledning til at inddrage disse selskaber som
sagsøgte under den efterfølgende hovedsag. Det forhold, at de to holdingselskaber ikke er parter i
hovedsagen, medfører dog ikke, at bevissikringssagen mod disse selskaber har været med urette.
3.6. Rekvisiti krav på erstatning for ulovligt indgreb (pkt. 10 i anmodningen om revurdering)
Rekvisitus synes at gøre gældende, at den blotte omstændighed, at der ikke er anlagt en hovedsag
HGSystem Holding eller Infotech Holding, indebærer, at rekvirenten er erstatningsansvarlig og skal
pålægges at betale sagsomkostninger til de pågældende parter. Med henvisning til det ovenstående
bestrides det at være tilfældet.
Det gøres derudover gældende, at det er udokumenteret fra rekvisiti side, hvilket tab og hvilke
sagsomkostninger de to holdingselskaber måtte være selvstændigt påført som følge af sikringen af
beviser…”
Processkrift af 8. november 2024 fra rekvirenten:
”…
2. Om krænkelsen af stridspatentet
I sit processkrift anfører rekvisitus, at stridsprodukterne indeholder en fælles gennemgående DCbus, som
har den funktion, at den leverer jævnstrøm fra jævnstrømsgeneratoren, som er drevet af
forbrændingsmotoren, til både batteri og inverter. Dermed foreligger der ifølge rekvisitus ikke en krænkelse
af stridspatentet, der beskriver, at forbrændingsmotoren kun leverer strøm til batterierne, og at det kun er
batterierne som leverer strøm til forbrændingsmotoren.
Rekvisitus søger at dokumentere eksistensen af den beskrevne løsning, hvor DC-bussen leverer jævnstrøm
til både batteri og inverter med fremlæggelsen af bilag Q (tabel med billeder med tilhørende beskrivelser af
en hybridgenerator) og bilag R (billeder af den pågældende hybridgenerator).
Rekvisitus anfører ikke, om den i bilag Q og R viste hybridgenerator skulle være en model MPU1000,
MPU2000 eller MPU3000.
63
Der er ligeledes ikke redegjort for, hvornår eksemplaret af hybridgeneratoren vist i Bilag Q og R er bygget,
herunder om det er sket før eller efter datoen for bevissikringen. Det bemærkes, at en videreudvikling af
modellerne MPU1000, MPU2000 og/eller MPU3000 foretaget efter bevissikringen ikke er genstand i denne
sag.
Bilag 13 indeholder en udskrift fra HGSystems hjemmeside den 10. august 2024 med data for
stridsprodukterne (modellerne MPU1000, MPU2000 og MPU3000).
Efter rekvirentens processkrift af 22. oktober 2024 har lavet to yderligere LinkedInopslag af
hhv. den 2. november 2024 (bilag 64) og 4. november 2024 (bilag 65).
I opslaget i bilag 64 beskriver en Hybridgenerator med 300 kW peak og 180 kVA nominel fra
batterierne.
I opslaget i bilag 65 kommer med yderligere detaljer om den pågældende MPU 3000 med
300 kW peak, som han beskriver som ”helt nyudviklet”, ligesom der i opslaget er yderligere detaljer om den
nyudviklede MPU3000.
Den angivne peak power for den nyudviklede MPU3000 ligger dermed et godt stykke over den angivne
peak power på 216 kW for den model af MPU3000, der er genstand for nærværende sag.
Det må lægges til grund, at denne øgede peak power skyldes, at både batteri og DC-generatoren hver især
leverer strøm direkte til inverteren som beskrevet i rekvisiti processkrift samt bilag R, Q og S, idet det ved
denne teknik er muligt at opnå en ekstra høj effekt.
Bilag Q og R er udarbejdet samtidig med opslag om den helt nyudviklede model MPU3000.
Rekvirenten er derfor af den opfattelse, at hybridgenerator modellen i bilag Q og R er denne helt
nyudviklede MPU3000, som ikke er genstand for sagen.
I erklæringen fra i bilag U anføres følgende, som imidlertid ikke er understøttet af nogen
beviser:
- ”Begrebet “Stridsprodukterne” benyttes i denne erklæring samlet om HGSystems hybridgeneratorer
kaldet MPU1000, MPU2000 og MPU3000, idet de alle tre for så vidt angår de elementer af krav 1 i
EP 4 238 202 B1 (“Stridspatentet”), der beskrives nedenfor, er opbygget og fungerer på samme vis.”
- ”Netop selve denne DC-kobling er, som angivet ovenfor, teknisk set den samme for alle
Stridsprodukterne. Herudover er Stridsprodukterne ikke generelt identiske, eksempelvis benyttes
ikke samme type motor, hvorfor styringen af Stridsprodukterne er forskellig.”
Idet rekvisitus har bygget stridsprodukterne selv, må det, forudsat at det anførte er korrekt, antages,
rekvisitus er i besiddelse af dokumentation for det anførte men bevidst har valgt ikke at fremlægge
dokumentationen
Det er dog rekvirentens opfattelse, at det anførte ikke kan omfatte de stridsprodukter, der er genstand for
sagen, idet motoren i den beskrevne løsning er koblet til den eksterne belastning, hvilket gør løsningen
mindre effektiv og dermed ikke-favorabel i sammenligning med den i stridspatentet beskrevne løsning.
64
Dette understøttes også af pkt. [0011] i beskrivelsen i stridspatentet, der anfører: “As long at the generator
+ engine is connected directly to the output (possibly via an inverter), the power factor is an issue. When a
power requirement is created by the load, the generator must be able to react to it.”
Som bilag 66 fremlægges en skriftlig vidneerklæring fra
som bekræfter, at en motor koblet direkte til belastningen ikke køres lige så effektiv. I erklæringen anføres
det, at ”I den ovenstående løsning er forbrændingsmotoren koblet til belastningen, og dermed kan den ikke
på samme måde drives i den mest effektive tilstand.”.
Motoren kan ikke undgå at blive påvirket af svingninger i belastningen, hvorved motoren vil fungere mindre
effektiv. Hvis batterierne er tæt på at være afladet, vil batterierne ikke kunne kompensere for motoren,
hvorved motoren vil opleve en meget stor belastning.
Derfor harmonerer den af rekvisitus beskrevne løsning ikke med angivelserne i rekvisiti markedsføring af
stridsprodukterne om, at disse har en væsentlig bedre brændstoføkonomi, jf. fx udtalelse i
artiklen i Erhverv Fyn (bilag 39), hvor det anføres, at hybridgeneratoren ”bliver mere autonom, optil 20%
bedre fuel-economi end den tidligere”.
Desuden bemærker i erklæringen, at årstiderne på billederne af stridsprodukterne i bilag Q og R
skifter fra billede til billede, og at billede 1 og 7 må være taget om efteråret, efter at bevissikringen var
udført. Da hybridgeneratoren ikke er færdigbygget, konkluderes det, at maskinen er konstrueret efter
bevissikringen.
Det bemærkes derudover, at alle nødvendige features for rekvisiti hybridgenerator ikke er fremvist i bilag Q
og R. På side 6 og 9 i bilag Q er der fremvist en inverterkobling (røde ledninger) til DC bus bar #2, men ingen
af billederne viser forbindelsen mellem batterierne og DC bus bar #2. Derudover indeholder bilagene ikke
et billede af en inverterkobling (sorte ledninger) til DC bus bar #1.
På baggrund af ovenstående fremstår det eksemplar af en hybridgenerator, som fremgår af bilag Q og R
ufærdig og fremstillet til lejligheden med det formål at vise en løsning, der ikke krænker stridspatentet. Der
er dog ingen dokumentation for, at den viste og beskrevne løsning er teknisk sammenfaldende med
stridsprodukterne.
4. Om stridspatentets gyldighed
Rekvisitus gør gældende i sit processkrift, at stridspatentet ikke er gyldigt i forhold til GB 2434928 A1 (Bilag
F), US 20140277791 A1 (Bilag L), og GB2493631A (Bilag N) og henviser i den forbindelse til kravmatricer for
GB 2434928 A1 (bilag G) og for US 20140277791 A1 (bilag L)
Rekvirenten henviser i den forbindelse til, at de tre citerede patentdokumenter alle var kendt af EPO og
dermed er indgået ved vurderingen af patenterbarheden af opfindelsen.
Det gøres gældende, at domstolen ikke i en sag om foreløbige foranstaltninger som nærværende sag har
mulighed for at tilsidesætte EPO’s vurdering af patenterbarheden over for de tre modhold og dermed
tilsidesætte stridspatentet som ugyldigt, og at formodningen om stridspatentets gyldighed allerede på
dette grundlag skal opretholdes.
Desuagtet skal rekvirenten i det følgende fremkomme med følgende bemærkninger til de fremdragne
modholdsskrifter:
65
GB 2434928 A1 (”GB 928”), bilag F
GB 928 (Bilag F) blev i de indledende faser af ansøgningsprocessen vurderet af EPO’s sagsbehandler til kun at være relevant for krav 1 (X-modhold) og krav 14/15 (Y-modhold), jf. bilag H og I.
Krav 1 blev efter de indledende faser begrænset med flere tekniske træk, som førte til udstedelsen af stridspatentet.
Beskrivelsen i GB 928, side 6, linje 2-6, omtaler udførelsesformen vist på figur 1, hvor motoren lader batterierne og giver kraft til inverteren. Dermed adskiller stridspatentet sig i det mindste fra GB 928 ved, at GB 2434928 ikke beskriver trækket ”the mobile hybrid generator system characterized in that the at least first primary energy source is dimensioned to the normal mode power requirements, i.e. much smaller than for the peak power requirements.”
US 20140277791 A1 (US 791), bilag L
Det bestrides ikke af rekvirenten, at den følgende løsning beskrevet i rekvisiti processkrift adskiller sig fra stridspatentet:
Ifølge resikvitus svarer ovenstående løsning til løsningen beskrevet i US 791, jf. følgende figur i processkriftet af 29. oktober 2024 side 15, hvor blå og røde farver er indtegnet:
66
Rekvisitus anfører følgende i processkriftet:
”Stridsprodukterne fungerer ikke på den måde, som Sagsøger fremhæver ovenfor.
I Stridsprodukterne leveres strøm til inverteren både fra batteriet og fra motoren/generatoren [fremhævelse].
Stridsprodukterne er opbygget således, at en forbrændingsmotor driver en jævnstrømsgenerator (DC). Denne generator leverer jævnstrøm til en fælles gennemgående DC-bus. Batterierne og inverteren er også koblet til denne DC-bus. Derfor er der en direkte kobling mellem jævnstrømsgeneratoren og inverteren. Det betyder, at motoren såvel under normal belastning og under spidsbelastning samtidigt kan levere strøm til både eksterne ’loads’ via inverteren og til opladning af batterierne.”
Dermed adskiller krav 1 i stridspatentet ifølge rekvisitus sig i det mindste fra US 791 ved, at US 791 ikke indeholder trækket:
wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the recharge-able energy storage unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power operation, having peak power requirements
GB2493631A (GB 631), bilag N
GB 631 blev vurderet af den europæiske sagsbehandlere til at være nærmeste kendte teknik. Dette er rekvirenten er enig i.
67
GB 631 blev studeret indgående af EPO’s sagsbehandlere, hvilket er tydeligt fra bilag O og P. EPO’s
sagsbehandlere vurderede ligeledes, at en fagperson ikke ville kombinere GB 631 med enten GB 928 eller
US 791 for så at komme frem til en hybridgenerator, som beskrevet i stridspatentet.
I rekvisiti processkrift anføres følgende: ”Det fremgår ikke af sagshistorikken, hvad sagsbehandleren har lagt
til grund for at anerkende opfindelseshøjde af det udstedte krav 1.”
Dette er imidlertid ikke korrekt, hvilket kan ses i sagsbehandlerens e-mail dateret 31. maj 2024 (bilag P, side
5):
Opfindelseshøjden i stridspatentet er baseret på, at en mindre dimensioneret motor er mere effektiv, og at
adskillelsen af motoren fra belastningen muliggør en mindre dimensionering af motoren.
Det vil desuden ikke være nærlæggende at kombinere GB 631 med videoen i rekvisiti bilag C1, da løsningen
i C1 inkluderer en boostmode hvor generatoren er i serie med inverteren. Det er der redegjort i
rekvirentens tidligere processkrift dateret 22. oktober 2024.
I pkt. 85 i rekvisiti processkrift gengiver rekvisitus udtalelse i bilag C1 på følgende måde: ”I
bilag C1 (ved 11:20-11:35) der omhandler en hybridgenerator, nævnes det specifikt, at motoren, for at spare
vægt, ønskes dimensioneret således, at den kun kan dække den nominelle belastning. US 791 (som
beskrevet ovenfor) nævner i paragraf [0040], at der kan spares omkostninger både i forbindelse med
produktion og brug ved at bruge en motor, der kun er dimensioneret til den gennemsnitlige belastning
fremfor maksimum belastning.”.
Citatet ved 11:20-11:35 I bilag C1 er som følger: ”the secondary problem is the weight is a problem we don't
want a generator that is big enough for the total load or even half we need maybe one that is one third for
only to cover the nominal load over time the rest the battery is the buffer.”
I citatet beskriver således, at batterierne er en buffer til motorens kraft, dvs. at energien fra
batterierne kun bruges, når belastningen når over nominel belastning – dette er direkte modsat løsningen i
stridspatentet, som beskriver “the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the
rechargeable energy storage unit”.
citat ved 11:20-11:35 harmonerer dermed med anden halvdel af pkt. 85 i rekvisiti
processkrift, hvor der henvises til US 791, fordi der i US 791 føres motorkraft både til inverter og
batterierne, således at batterierne er en buffer til motoren.
Udførelsesformen, som beskriver i 11:20-11:35 i C1, var derfor en løsning magen til US 791
(som dog er mindre energieffektiv end rekvirentens senere patenterede løsning).
68
Idet rekvisitus selv anfører, at den i bilag Q beskrevne løsning adskiller sig fra stridspatent, må rekvisitus
være enig i, at løsningen i US 791 adskiller sig fra stridspatentet.
På baggrund af ovenstående kan det konkluderes, at hvis en fagperson kombinerede GB 631 og C1, ville
den resulterende hybridgenerator have en boostmode, og motoren ville levere strøm direkte til inverteren,
hvilket falder uden for løsningen beskrevet i stridspatentet.
4. Bevissikringsrapporten skal udleveres
Som anført i rekvirentens e-mail af den 7. oktober 2024 har rekvisiti anmodning om revurdering af
domstolens kendelse om sikring af beviser ikke opsættende virkning i forhold til udlevering af
bevissikringsrapporten.
Rekvisiti to processkrifter i nærværende sag er uden håndfast dokumentation for, at stridsprodukterne
teknisk set fungerer som postuleret af rekvisitus, hvilket kun bekræfter nødvendigheden af, at
bevissikringsrapporten skal udleveres straks. Rekvisiti processkrifter bekræfter, at kun gennem udlevering
af bevissikringsrapporten kan formodningen om krænkelse af stridspatentet bekræftes eller afkræftes.
Det følger af kendelse af den 21. september 2023 i sag UPC-CFI-329/2023 fra den lokale afdeling af
Domstolen i Bruxelles, at bevissikringsrapporten skal udleveres straks, den er klar. Det kan og bør ikke være
til rekvisiti fordel, at (under trussel om tvangsbøder) har nægtet at udlevere alle koder til
den IT-sagkyndige. Som allerede anført skal den IT-sagkyndige derfor fremsende en foreløbig
bevissikringsrapport på grundlag af det materiale, han har til sin rådighed.
Det forhold, at kendelsen i sag UPC-CFI-329/2023 vedrørte oplysninger om produkter, som var offentligt
tilgængelige på et symposium, havde alene betydning for spørgsmålet om pålæggelse af en
fortrolighedsforpligtelse men ikke betydning for spørgsmålet om, hvor hurtigt bevissikringsrapporten skal
udleveres. Rekvisitus har allerede i anmodningen om revurdering af domstolens kendelse anmodet om, at
der pålægges de personer, der har fået kendskab til fortrolige oplysninger en fortrolighedsforpligtelse,
hvilket rekvirenten ikke har modsat sig.
Det forhold, at det bevissikrede materiale måtte indeholde fortrolige oplysninger kan derfor ikke begrunde,
at bevissikringsrapporten ikke udleveres straks.
Hvis domstolen ikke imødekommer rekvirentens anmodning om straks at få udleveret
bevissikringsrapporten vedrørende alt materiale omfattet af rekvirentens påstande, gør rekvirenten
subsidiært gældende, at der foreløbig skal ske udlevering af de dele af bevissikringsrapporten, der angår
den tekniske opbygning af stridsprodukterne, således at eksistensen af krænkelsen af stridspatentet kan
klarlægges.
Som anført i rekvirentens e-mail af den 7. oktober 2024 har rekvisiti anmodning om revurdering af
domstolens kendelse om sikring af beviser ikke opsættende virkning i forhold til udlevering af
bevissikringsrapporten.
Rekvisiti to processkrifter i nærværende sag er uden håndfast dokumentation for, at stridsprodukterne
teknisk set fungerer som postuleret af rekvisitus, hvilket kun bekræfter nødvendigheden af, at
bevissikringsrapporten skal udleveres straks. Rekvisiti processkrifter bekræfter, at kun gennem udlevering
af bevissikringsrapporten kan formodningen om krænkelse af stridspatentet bekræftes eller afkræftes.
69
Det følger af kendelse af den 21. september 2023 i sag UPC-CFI-329/2023 fra den lokale afdeling af
Domstolen i Bruxelles, at bevissikringsrapporten skal udleveres straks, den er klar. Det kan og bør ikke være
til rekvisiti fordel, at (under trussel om tvangsbøder) har nægtet at udlevere alle koder til
den IT-sagkyndige. Som allerede anført skal den IT-sagkyndige derfor fremsende en foreløbig
bevissikringsrapport på grundlag af det materiale, han har til sin rådighed.
Det forhold, at kendelsen i sag UPC-CFI-329/2023 vedrørte oplysninger om produkter, som var offentligt
tilgængelige på et symposium, havde alene betydning for spørgsmålet om pålæggelse af en
fortrolighedsforpligtelse men ikke betydning for spørgsmålet om, hvor hurtigt bevissikringsrapporten skal
udleveres. Rekvisitus har allerede i anmodningen om revurdering af domstolens kendelse anmodet om, at
der pålægges de personer, der har fået kendskab til fortrolige oplysninger en fortrolighedsforpligtelse,
hvilket rekvirenten ikke har modsat sig.
Det forhold, at det bevissikrede materiale måtte indeholde fortrolige oplysninger kan derfor ikke begrunde,
at bevissikringsrapporten ikke udleveres straks.
Hvis domstolen ikke imødekommer rekvirentens anmodning om straks at få udleveret
bevissikringsrapporten vedrørende alt materiale omfattet af rekvirentens påstande, gør rekvirenten
subsidiært gældende, at der foreløbig skal ske udlevering af de dele af bevissikringsrapporten, der angår
den tekniske opbygning af stridsprodukterne, således at eksistensen af krænkelsen af stridspatentet kan
klarlægges…”
Domstolens begrundelse
I henhold til artikel 60, stk. 1, i UPC-aftalen kan domstolen på begæring af rekvirenten allerede inden
realitetsbehandling af en sag påbegyndes, afsige kendelse om, at der omgående skal iværksættes
effektive foreløbige foranstaltninger med henblik på at sikre det relevante bevismateriale i
forbindelse med den påståede krænkelse, under forudsætning af, at fortrolige oplysninger beskyttes.
Dette kræver, at rekvirenten har fremført et rimeligt tilgængeligt bevismateriale til støtte for, at
patentet er blevet krænket eller vil blive krænket.
Reglerne om bevissikring er et værktøj, der giver rettighedsindehaveren mulighed for at få klarhed
over, om der er sket en krænkelse eller omfanget af denne. Reglerne om bevissikring kræver ikke
fuldt bevis for krænkelse for, at de kan anvendes, ligesom der efter ordlyden af artikel 60, stk. 1, ikke
er krav om, at rekvirenten skal sandsynliggøre eller med stor sikkerhed skal kunne fastslå, at der
foreligger en krænkelse. Der ses således at gælde et forholdsvist lempeligt beviskrav for
gennemførelse af en bevissikringssag i henhold til ovennævnte bestemmelse.
I henhold til artikel 42 i UPC-aftalen om proportionalitet og retfærdighed skal Domstolen behandle
retssager under hensyn til deres betydning og kompleksitet.
En afgørelse om bevissikring vil således i henhold til artikel 60, stk. 1, skulle overholde det
almindelige krav om proportionalitet, der følger af artikel 42 i UPC-aftalen.
70
Domstolen fandt i sin kendelse af 26. august 2024, at rekvirenten på det foreliggende grundlag havde
fremført et rimeligt tilgængeligt bevismateriale til støtte for, at europæisk patent nr. 4 238 202 B1
(stridspatentet) er eller vil blive krænket i Danmark i lokaler,
Domstolen lagde i denne vurdering særligt vægt på, at der forelå en velunderbygget formodning for,
at stridsprodukterne fra rekvisiti (MPU 1000/2000/3000) måtte antages at indeholde alle tekniske
træk i det selvstændige krav 1 i patentet, ligesom det måtte antages, at stridsprodukterne indeholder
træk i underkrav 5,6, 7 og 13.
Domstolen fandt, at de fremlagte eksempler på opslag på de sociale medier Facebook og LinkedIn
fra der var blevet gengivet af rekvirenten, endvidere understøttede formodningen
om, at krænkelse foregår eller vil finde sted. Der forelå således en velunderbygget formodning for,
at krænkelser har fundet sted eller ville finde sted på den pågældende adresse.
Rekvisiti har anmodet om, at Domstolen revurderer sin kendelse i henhold til procesreglementets
regel 197, stk. 3.
Stridspatentets gyldighed
Rekvisiti har henvist til, at betingelserne for at foretage bevissikring ikke er opfyldt, idet
stridspatentet er ugyldigt som følge af manglende nyhed og manglende opfindelseshøjde.
Rekvisiti har i den forbindelse henvist til, at stridspatentet jf., art. 52, stk. 1, og art. 54, stk. 2, i Den
europæiske Patentkonvention, savner nyhed over for patentansøgninger, der blev indleveret forud
for prioritetsdatoen for stridspatentet den 28. oktober 2020. Der er tale om US 2014/0277791 A1
(Bilag L) og GB 2 434 928 A1 (Bilag F).
Rekvirenten har herudover gjort gældende, at patentet mangler opfindelseshøjde, jf. art. 56 i Den
europæiske Patentkonvention, i forhold til GB 2 493 631 A (Bilag N).
Domstolen bemærker, at det fremgår af sagens oplysninger, at de ovennævnte 3
patentdokumenter alle skulle være indgået i forbindelse med sagsbehandlingen ved EPO ved
vurderingen af, om betingelserne for udstedelse af stridspatentet var opfyldt.
Der verserer ikke på nuværende tidspunkt indsigelsessager vedrørende gyldigheden af
stridspatentet. Der eksisterer således en klar formodning for stridspatentets gyldighed således,
som det er blevet udstedt.
Domstolen finder herefter, at der ikke på baggrund af den mulige bevisførelse, der er fremført af
rekvisiti under denne indledende sag om bevissikring, er et fornødent grundlag for at komme frem
til, at stridspatentet må anses for at være ugyldigt.
71
Krænkelse af stridspatentet
Domstolen lægger til grund, at det kendetegnende træk i stridpatentet er, at energikilden - dvs.
dieselmotoren - er konfigureret til normal drifts belastningsbehov og dermed skal køre mindre end
det, der er kendt fra prior art.
Stridsprodukterne indeholder dette kendetegnende træk.
I forhold til krænkelse er spørgsmålet, om trækkene i stridspatentet, som består i, at motoren kun
leverer strøm til batteriet, og det kun er batteriet, der leverer strøm til belastningen via inverteren,
findes i stridsprodukterne.
Det er ikke bestridt af rekvirenten, at hvis stridsprodukterne rent faktisk teknisk fungerer på den
måde, som der nu er redegjort for i processkrifterne fra rekvisiti, og der gøres brug af to bus-bares,
hvoraf den ene bus-bar leverer strøm fra motoren/generatoren til inverteren uden om batteriet,
foreligger der ikke en patentkrænkelse.
Det må således anses for anerkendt af rekvirenten, at rekvirenten ikke på det foreliggende
grundlag har godtgjort, at det i stridsprodukterne kun er batteriet, der leverer strøm via inverteren.
Rekvirenten har således ikke på det foreliggende grundlag dokumenteret krænkelse.
Rekvisiti har anført, at det herefter på det foreliggende grundlag må anses for at være mere
sandsynligt, at stridsprodukterne ikke krænker stridspatentet, end at det modsatte skulle være
tilfældet.
Rekvirenten har heroverfor gjort gældende, at man netop anmodede om bevissikringen for at
skaffe et ikke tilgængeligt bevismateriale således, at man efterfølgende kan dokumentere denne
krænkelse.
Rekvirenten har i den forbindelse videre gjort gældende, at beskrivelsen af stridsprodukterne fra
rekvisiti ikke hænger sammen med det anførte om energieffektivitet i stridsprodukterne, og at
rekvisiti ikke har fremlagt den dokumentation herfor, som rekvisiti må anses for at være i
besiddelse af.
Rekvirenten gør i den forbindelse yderligere gældende, at stridsprodukterne må anses for at være
blevet ombygget efter bevissikringssagens indledning.
og har i deres vidneerklæringer bekræftet rekvisitis beskrivelse af
stridsprodukterne. Det følger af vidneerklæringen fra at der ikke har fundet nogen
principiel mekanisk udvikling og ombygning sted på maskinen MPU3000 siden 30. august 2024.
72
Domstolen findes ikke på det foreliggende grundlag uanset vidneerklæringerne fra
og – også under henvisning til det af fogedretten beskrevne særegne forløb af
bevissikringsforretningen på rekvisitis adresse den 30. august 2024 - at kunne afvise rekvirentens
argumentation om, at der efter bevissikringssagens indledning er sket en ombygning af
stridsprodukterne.
I henhold til det forholdsvist lempelige beviskrav for gennemførelse af en bevissikringssag i henhold
til artikel 60, stk. 1, i UPC-aftalen, finder Domstolen derfor fortsat, at rekvirenten har fremlagt et
fornødent bevismateriale til støtte for, at stridspatentet er blevet krænket af rekvisitis
stridsprodukter.
De involverede parter i bevissikringssagen
Domstolen henviser indledningsvis til det ovenfor anførte om, at reglerne om bevissikring er et
værktøj, der giver rettighedsindehaveren mulighed for at få klarhed over, om der er sket en
krænkelse eller omfanget af denne.
Det er af rekvisiti ikke blevet bestridt, at rekvirentens anmodning om bevissikring med rette er
blevet rettet mod HGSystem ApS, hvis Domstolen finder, at der foreligger et rimeligt tilgængeligt
bevismateriale til støtte for, at stridsprodukterne udgør en krænkelse af stridspatentet.
Rekvisiti har dog gjort gældende, at de øvrige parter – HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS,
Infotech Holding ApS og personligt aldrig burde have været inddraget i
bevissikringssagen.
Domstolen bemærker, at det er ubestridt, at Infotech Concept ApS stod som registrant af domænet
hgsystem.dk.
Domstolen bemærker videre, at alle 4 selskaber
Domstolen finder endvidere, at de af rekvirenten fremlagte eksempler på opslag på de sociale
medier Facebook og LinkedIn fra i et vist omfang underbygger, at der kunne være en
tæt sammenblanding af de pågældende parter hos rekvisiti, og at det derfor ikke på forhånd ville
kunne udledes hos hvilken part, at muligt relevant bevismateriale befandt sig.
Domstolen finder på denne baggrund, at rekvirenten ikke forud for anmodningen om bevissikring
havde mulighed for at gøre sig bekendt med, hvilke af de involverede parter hos rekvisiti, som lå inde
med relevante mulige beviser for en eventuel krænkelse af stridspatentet.
Domstolen finder således, at rekvirenten i fornødent omfang har redegjort for de årsager, som
nødvendiggjorde inddragelse af disse parter i anmodningen om bevissikring.
73
Under henvisning hertil finder Domstolen, at der af rekvirenten er blevet fremlagt et rimeligt
tilgængeligt bevismateriale til støtte for, at alle disse parter kan have deltaget i, at stridspatentet er
blevet krænket eller vil blive krænket, jf. artikel 60, stk.1 i UPC-aftalen.
Domstolen finder i forlængelse heraf, at det ikke kan anses for at være i strid med
proportionalitetsprincippet, at de ovennævnte parter er omfattet af kendelsen om bevissikring.
Det kan ikke føre til en anden vurdering, at rekvirenten har valgt ikke at inddrage HGSystem Holding
ApS og Infotech Holding ApS i den efterfølgende hovedsag.
Konklusion
På ovennævnte baggrund stadfæster Domstolen den tidligere afsagte kendelse af 26. august 2024,
jf. artikel 60, stk. 6, i UPC-aftalen og regel 197, stk. 4, i procesreglementet.
Den af den udpegede uvildige IT-ekspert udarbejdede rapport fra bevissikringen
udleveres til repræsentanterne for sagens parter.
Repræsentanterne er forpligtede til at hemmeligholde eventuelle forretningshemmeligheder og
andre fortrolige oplysninger, der skulle komme dem til kendskab herigennem.
Afgørelse om sagsomkostninger udskydes indtil hovedsagen.
Domstolens afgørelse
Kendelsen af 26. august 2024 fra Domstolens lokale afdeling i København om at tage rekvirentens
anmodning vedrørende europæisk patent nr. 4 238 202 B1 om omgående sikring af bevismateriale
og besigtigelse af ejendom uden forudgående varsel af rekvisiti til følge i henhold til UPC-aftalens
artikel 60 og procesreglementets regel 196 stadfæstes.
Den udarbejdede rapport fra den udpegede uvildige IT-ekspert udleveres til
repræsentanterne for sagens parter.
Repræsentanterne er forpligtede til at hemmeligholde eventuelle forretningshemmeligheder og
andre fortrolige oplysninger, der skulle komme dem til kendskab herigennem.
Rapporten kan alene anvendes som bevismateriale i hovedsagen.
Afgørelse om sagsomkostninger udskydes indtil hovedsagen.
Rekvisiti kan i henhold til artikel 73 i UPC-aftalen og regel 220 i procesreglementet senest 15 dage
efter at have modtaget meddelelse om kendelsen appellere denne til Appeldomstolen.
74
Navn og underskrift
Peter Juul Agergaard
DETAILS OF THE ORDER:
Main file reference: ACT_47484/2024
UPC number: UPC_CFI_492/2024
Type of procedure: Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP 19
Peter Juul
Agergaar
d
Digitalt signeret
af Peter Juul
Agergaard
Dato: 2024.12.19
08:49:30 +01'00'


Machine Translation

1
Copenhagen - Local Department
UPC _CFl_492/2024
ACT_47484/2024
ORD_59411/2024
Order of the Court
Delivered by the Copenhagen Local Division of the Unified Patent Court
on 19 December 2024 concerning EP 4 238
202 B1
The order concerns European patent no. 4 238 202 B1 and relates to whether the Court's ex parte order
on the preservation of evidence of 26 August 2024 shall be upheld or revoked in whole or in part pursuant
to Article 60(6) of the UPC Agreement.
Headnotes
Keywords
Requisiti:
HGSystem ApS
(Attorney Allan Christensen and European Patent Agent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
HGSystem Holding ApS
(Attorney Allan Christensen and European Patent Agent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
Infotech Concept ApS
(Attorney Allan Christensen and European Patent Agent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
Infotech Holding ApS
(Attorney Allan Christensen and European Patent Agent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
2
(Attorney Allan Christensen and European Patent Agent Jacob Meyland)
(collectively "rekvisiti")
Petitioner:
Hybridgenerator ApS
Nørrevang 15 Nørre Lyndelse 5792 Årslev, Denmark
(attorney Mikkel Kleis and patent agent Lasse Rosenlund Lauridsen)
The disputed patent
European patent no. 4 238 202 B1
Judge
The order was made by a single Judge, Mr Peter Agergaard, President of the Court, pursuant to Rule 194(3) of
the Rules of Procedure.
Language of the case
Danish language
The subject-matter of the case
In accordance with the petitioner's request of 16 August 2024, the local division in Copenhagen issued an ex
parte order for the preservation of evidence on 26 August 2024.
The court order was executed by the Bailiff Court in Svendborg, Denmark, on 30 August 2024.
On 30 September 2024, Rekvisiti requested a review of the order pursuant to Rule 197(3) of the Rules of
Procedure.
Due to problems with the disclosure of passwords etc., the report for the investigation by the Court's
independent IT expert could not be finalised until after Rekvisiti's request for reconsideration
of the order.
Against this background, the report was not handed over before the main hearing on the question of
reconsideration of the order.
In connection with the request for reconsideration, new documents have been submitted, including
written witness statements, and the parties have submitted new pleadings.
Date for the main hearing
In agreement with the parties, the court initially set the date for the main hearing for 31 October 2024 at
09.30-15.30.
3
At the request of the petitioner, the main hearing was subsequently rescheduled for 28 November 2024.
Accordingly, the main hearing was held at the local division in Copenhagen
28 November 2024 pursuant to Rule 197(4) of the Rules of Procedure, where the court announced that a
judgment would be delivered on 19 December 2024 at 10 am.
Pleas in law
The Respondent submits the following claims:
Pursuant to Article 60(6) of the UPC Agreement and Rule 197(4) of the Rules of Procedure, Rekvisiti
requests that, pursuant to Article 60(1) and (2) of the UPC Agreement and Rule 196 of the Rules of
Procedure, the order of the Court of 16 August 2024
1) principally, set aside,
2) in the alternative, be amended in accordance with what is set out below.
In addition, pursuant to the last sentence of Rule 197(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the applicant requests that
the court to oblige the persons who have learnt confidential information to keep that information confidential
and to impose penalty payments in the event of non-compliance.
The applicant claims that the Court should
Principally, the court's order of 26 August 2024 is upheld.
In the alternative, the court's order of 26 August 2024 may be modified to a specified extent.
4
Written witness statement dated 29 October 2024 from
Written witness statements
I: confirm that the below ride statement is true and correct4.
This memorandum has been prepared in the pending case between H5-Łridgenerator ApS ("Case- sn-per")
on the one side rig HGRzteoe ApS, HG£iutern Holding ApS, InÏõtech Mncept Opt, Infò- tech
Holding 5 and on the other (collectively ".5a j;te"}, herein after in case
LLC ITT
i Pernonal background
I am currently serving as, among other things, CEO of which provides
5tridsprc'duk- tems, and I have previously been CEO of Sagsoger,
The concept -.fitridsprcduL:Iiлтie" henimes i deaлe eràøærtog saoelet oæ HGȘş-steœs hș-br °eaazta-
rer îalôet 3dI'Ütooo, lîPÜzooo at thoo o: iÂet de all three for sa x1át gngac Âe eloeoeoter zź draт I
i EP ą o$8 now BI (-fÎtrirLлpatentt-t"). which describes c's nedc nfor. or op&jgy-t ng works gá
zn 8agsogersú>rlü&ringaflosoùogeolStńdspatemteł
I understand that 3agsoger has stated that it is the opinion of the Plaintiff that the pzx'dukfier in this
c a s e , including the Plaintiff's former product, is not in favour of the Plaintiff:
Furthermore, I understand that the 5agsoger/or äet"nder has syst that the problems such a los ixig
down- forøe, are:
[Sueгs egeтi fiemlioe e]se]
5
In other words, I am of the opinion that it is the opinion of the plaintiff that the peculiarity of the semen
dispute is that there is zlene James roro tg In 'etheræt fzz '"ztteri& æen aJtsz zldæ dirÅåte from æo-
torEn,-'°eoeraLorea.
Stzi'isprodulderne Inn erer Le strc i mia battery
Stridspro lztezzie ffiogerez de paden Ide, soæ Szgso-æ fzenTlzæ-er above.
In Sir.dspzoduL1eme Tetæres stzora to iax'ezterea Sole *a battery and Oz motory'@eneratoz+o.
The 5iridsprcd-lerxie is organised in such a way that a combustion engine drives a 5iustronis
generator (DC). This generator often supplies a common geanezngieade DC-'aus. Battery series are
also connected to this DC bus. Therefore, there is a direct connection between the power supply and
the insmterezi. It 0eh,fier, ai motor szs'el u-ider normfi load and uzider peak loadzztog sarnb gt k°
laere tight t:iJ bade rlslri na- ' de' t1" inY rrtcrcn "g iJ apladzfiog Æ batteries.
The e]ek ke ibr0inalisations can be more accurately i1)ustrated by this p-i.-.eip diagram:
Precisely sHxæ deane CiC-lioblizig is, soen apgii-et over.year, teluiically 'ren this year all 3triåspro-
duL-terne. Home: e:Stridsproduktertie il&e general* ideatisJie, for example 1:+nittes & e
I have gladly seen the 3trialogue's proceedings of today's date, including the account under section Ci
with accompanying photo'. I confirm that the court-orelsezi is a hnrrekfi reciprocal ai. hi-o:ledes -
pzod the cows ftmgerer.
6
Appe
ndix
66
Patradś
Written testimonial of i
Hybńdgenerator ApS
Background
Yours truly, m in Hybridgenerator ApS. I have previously been W m m I
Cantox ApS, which specialises in providing IT systems and services. I have therefore been involved in
HendsXab lil hybrid generators and especially in the management of systems
the hope for the Ap5 hybrid generator and the companies involved
I have reviewed an indieyered an -odn'ng Off 5ikrİrjg ît1 b ryismaleriaie and verify that
øjandom ag Can bokræhe, al doei deri anfona sagsframsfilling is korrekl.
Alter borivlsnlngefl aT 0g i fO/bsr'd I69 Ined the 0lierf0lgend0 :siIale O'zI
Ø I Hybridgenwalor ApS warrants 5 exemplar9r EII
Hybridganarator ApS" hybridgerieraîo is, as 1ahnic funqorar as described in claim 1 of European patent
no. 423820a.
Commentary to witness statement
I have read the witness statement (Exhibit U} s-arnt reviewed the other exhibits in the
case, including §hIagQ- T, which allegedly show an example of one of the hybrid peneratorrtiodules.
dies or ganstand for the case (banævn1 slridsprodukteme).
That is my clear judgement that this cannot be the case, which I will explain in the following.
According to the chemical compounds in the combat products are made as shown on a
single component, which is the SySlOfŁØl had0f1 g0Üf1emgáerioe bus lil which the generalor is
nobles
direkle tîl batte net and the inverter.
Appendix 66: Written witness statement dated 8 November 2024 from
7
Page 2 al 5
However, this assumption does not mean that the combat products are not recognised by and
HGSystem ApS as being significantly more enerq ieflexive than H/brldgene alor ApS' hy&idgeneralo er.
F.Vs. ariferer in E Over Fyn HR. 10 2023 (appendix 39) that his hybrid generator "'will
be more autonomous, up to 20% better fuel economy than the old one'"
The above statement implies a higher efficiency compared to Hybridpeneaior ApS' patented loading, where
the lorry engine only loads the lanes and the inverter only receives power from the lanes.
IUed HyDidgerisrator ApS' patented solution has disconnected the combustion engine from the load so that it is
only connected to the furnace. This enables the combustion engine to be operated more efficiently than the
furnace solution.
In the above solution, the combustion engine is coupled to the combustion engine and can therefore
iMfO pÖ 6BITtM0 fYiädo driV06 in the most effective way.
In addition, the oel b ag 0 and R remain ex plar Qt A hyb dge e ato ernst 'Ie ul
latlighedan.
The first picture in appendix Q and R shows a not yet built hybrid generator, where you can see that there
are two large openings that still need to be covered. In comparison, Flag 13 shows a completed axle
section of the axle assembly of the stiidsprcducts.
In the last picture on the left and right you can see a hedge of trees with many leaves. The trees must
therefore have been taken in the autumn, rather than when the proofing was installed. If the hybrid
generBtOren is not completed, it must be concluded that the machine is the cons[roere1elle proofing.
Trees/igs leaves are mainly
fBled off and the rasterendo
are orange
Hedge+n rriangles are tinted and
in addition, the leaves are orange.
Yda esw and eIekt'onikkasæ are missing
Media
clips from
i1 13:
8
It bemmkes aı 6ide 7 bilâBo AndSâ has an orarıge coloured here. That's why there was no
colour on this image. On page 6 of appendix 0 you can also see gravel and that T-e1emanI, which is
similar to the T-element on page 7. It is therefore true that the links on page 6 and e ıagw on
the same page.
Haakker 6 Ola de er Oraflge.
T-elememem
İ
T-element
Page
7
9
Sido 9 al 9
Image! shown p8 spoon d in bJlug Q v looks like a later step in the collection a[ product Shared
However, the pictures show a shrub against green leaves and therefore there must be no such thing as "a
.'lor year. Dei e likewise. unlikely. that HGs/s'ein ApS vll let a hybrid genera[or beat u1ærdig. as shown
on page T, until the autumn, when the share Iorbunde\ to make
I tbrldge e a'o a /e dg will be minimal.
In the best picture f page g in b'layer Q) the hyDi ogeneralo e ht\iel lorh0ld hi Page8 8. as the hybrid
genera1or is standing on a floor. It is not possible to date the image shown on page 9. but there is no reason
to IrO 61 dg1 e the same N as"ine as =s\ @ page 8.
'"Wooden plates and a gF0fl
heel.
'
As it takes approximately one week to move a hybrid generator from the image on page 8 of appendix Q to
the image on page 1 of appendix Q, appendices O and R contain images of two different
Page e al 9
Gravel
10
hyb idge eralo modeeer, where all the power output of one of these will be skei
ełter sagana plant.
Farie,
11
OE
Appendix V: Written witness statement dated 15 November 2024 from
shdkJla vkfnaarkzurfrts regarding the 'hMystem "aP'J3o00'.
I, rr trained by HGSysæm ApS, to uAvIkIe, draw, con5lxueæ and d0kum¢n\ers maaFinømc in the
MPU (MobilP Prrxier Units), which 'nddI further consist r uru'0-0, MPUZ@ I 's MPU3000.
I hours a is keltmaautsvirk5rmlrKd, Avre' j¢8 I isi miss arbzjdstraft out to companies that need help in the
naskinprcdukti0m.
Mad mln trained machine operators and J"/ z wr irø indrn for meåkiaudV?kl irig o§ mart:iaprodukåon I have
contributed to the development of the machines. d4c prpduotves vgd I¥Gsv6Lem Aps,
I have been i n business for 7 years, primarily working for £øblnplant A/S. Hybri ener4tor ApS, HGSys em
ApElåg eigeleb9ndo East mir*dæ tasks get fkre other "Aksnmbg-04v.
For so ilde aggJr the connection between rriotor/DC geru-rator. ba te" and in-wia-, :d turgecer the three products
MPU100d, MPLf2€€O and MPUSOOOelter hamnx' principle. Thus, it is a real fofg.Indel se fr4 moic-/DC
e--n0t-- ja to bo btJ"w II sz-el aa le i r-m I¥ryzI*irf. rn I lMst ui f, 'IY"r'edes MP U3ao0 rM I e w, lt out
also show how peru tm t MPU2000 runteræ.
Out-'!d'-g3a-beidM with MIPU8 bIeu 4ta'\¢t Op in November Z€iZ3 and /odgb indtll ma] JD24, where the fe/s\e exercise
Apr tozype) e! met*irIeJt was Idar dl startup and testing. Selue sam|In8an of pr04xztypen bev commenced in eprll 2d24 and the
Since May 2074, we have been working with other products in the company.
There have been a number of changes to the MPU3000 since May.
I am aware of the fact that the d4r is gzDujdet p4 styni sofMae,
motard talpr sgmt j4g kar 0 rct tesrkgrsei of maski new after m4j Zq24.
**+*+!+9! p6 MPU3000 is relatively spacious, and it is therefore possible within our framework to produce larger products
such as a larger battery with a large number of inverter modules. oezte ger 4ei mviigt to ggB ekSeFf1[MhJlS f0duk¥Cl
pog§ l0ad eden, all the general setup, fwrundzr Fwblrafe4sen between moror/OE generor, DC busbar. barc"i nvezler,
andrew
C
E
P
12
I can tell you on my word of honour that the rlei i£ te has been performing basic meKanical development Dg OlTlbygni ng on
the machine MPU 3ÆO since 3d August ZO24.
Dclense d.*5/L1-2U24
13
Pleadings of the parties
Recvisiti's pleading of 30 September 2024:
"...
D SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF CASE AND PLEADINGS
1 On the evidence presented by Hybridgenerator
1.1 Activities related to the Norwegian company
Hybridgenerator has submitted a large number of documents with the request for preservation of evidence. A very large
of the documents are transcripts of posts on Facebook and LinkedIn. Common to a large number of the attachments
is that they have no relevance to the facts of this case.
Among other things, the attachments deal with actions in Norway. had a special section for Norway
specific agreement that he could run a competing business with Hybridgenerator after the termination of their
cooperation. As stated in Hybridgenerator's own statement of case, this happened, among other things, by
Hybridgenerator and entering into an agreement that
Hybridgenerator's Norwegian company ('Hybridgenerator AS', which has now changed its name to 'HGSystem AS').
The Norwegian company is not involved in this case. However, the vast majority of the social media transcripts
presented are related to the Norwegian company. For this reason, the Court is asked to disregard these documents.
It should also be noted that EP 4 238 202 B1 ("the Contested Patent") has not been validated in Norway, and that the
Contested Patent thus - notwithstanding the comments below where it is argued that the Contested Patent is not valid
and that the Contested Products do not exhibit all claim elements of claim 1 of the Contested Patent - does not impose
any
limitations on requisition in relation to acts etc. in Norway. The Court has no jurisdiction to assess acts performed in
Norway.
1.2 Attempts to discredit
Several of the attachments also have the sole purpose of painting an inaccurate picture of/discrediting
One example is Appendix 37, which is a Facebook post with a video showing a shredder. has posted the video with the
text: "Office work again, here is my number one favourite
office machine. It really gets something out of your hands." followed by a smiley face. In the comments section, one
person wrote: "delete all traces" followed by a smiley face. In the appendix, it is anonymised who wrote the
comment, which gives the impression that it was itself, which is not the case.
the case. This is not clarified in the request for evidence either, despite the fact that Hybridgenerator has actively
deleted the information that it is not who wrote the comment. The attachment can therefore only
have one purpose, namely to discredit , which the court is asked to disregard.
14
1.3 Hybrid generator's claim matrix
Furthermore, the many appendices do not anywhere show the presence of all claim elements in claim 1 of the
Disputed Patent. The appendices consist of numerous examples of HGSystem selling hybrid generators, but not proof
that each of the Disputed Products (MPU 1000, MPU 2000 and MPU 3000) exhibits all claim elements.
Thus, the only evidence sought to be adduced in support of Hybrid Generator's claim of infringement is the claim matrix
included in the request on pages 13-15. It is noted that the claim matrix is
Hybrid Generator's own party submission and not a real proof of infringement. As will be shown below, the claim
matrix contains a number of errors, and it does not account for the fact that all claim elements are exhibited by all
the Contested Products. The requirements matrix only randomly refers to four 'references' as "documentation" that
all requirement elements should be exhibited by the Combat Products. Three of the four references are social media
posts. Of these three, two do not state that they relate to the Dispute Products, and the last of the three
relates to only one of the Conflict Products - the MPU 1000 series model.
For one of the elements, the requirements matrix states that the traction is present in the Combat Products (i.e. MPU
1000, MPU 2000 and MPU 3000), but the description states that according to reference 2, "24 kVA AC out" is supplied,
and that MPU 1000 supplies 24 kVA AC power. Reference 2 thus only refers to the MPU 1000, and no attempt has
even been made to prove how this applies to the other Contested Products.
Furthermore, several elements in the requirement matrix are based on Hybrid Generator's pure speculation.
Among other things, it can be emphasised that formulations such as 'it is highly probable' are used
the description of the presence of a requirement element, as another solution would be 'complicated' according to
Hybridgenerator. Another argument in the requirements matrix is based on the fact that
Against this background, it is Hybridgenerator's conclusion that it is 'highly likely' that
the solution is included in new companies. Without concrete evidence for this conclusion, it might
have been more obvious to conclude that
is precisely aware of the solution in the Dispute Patent, and has therefore had every opportunity and
otherwise had the ability to develop a solution that does not fall within the scope of protection of the Dispute Patent.
It is noted that Hybridgenerator has the burden of proving that the Dispute Patent has been infringed or will
be infringed and that in support thereof, cf. Article 60(1) of the UPC Agreement, reasonably
available evidence. Already on the basis of the above, it can be concluded that no evidence of infringement has been
adduced, and for that reason alone, the Court's order of 16 August 2024 made pursuant to Article 60(1) and (2) of the
UPC Agreement and Rule 196 of the Rules of Procedure must be set aside, cf. Article 60(6) of the UPC Agreement and
Rule 197(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
2 Priority of the patent in suit
The patent in suit was granted on 14 August 2024. The patent in suit was filed on 28 October 2021 with application
number 21802306.7 (the "Patent Application") and claims priority from the European patent application 20204351 (the
"Priority Application") filed on 28 October 2020.
In connection with the filing of the Patent Application, a number of changes were made to the application text,
whereby this added content has an effective filing date of the Contested Patent
15
filing date of 28 October 2021, while the content found in the Priority Application has an effective
effective filing date on the priority date 28 October 2020 (split priority). This means that publications in the period
from 28 October 2020 until 28 October 2021 may be relevant for the assessment of the validity of the patent in suit.
However, for the sake of simplicity, the following only focuses on publicly available knowledge before the priority date
28 October 2020, however, rekvisiti expressly reserves the right to rely at a later date on publications during the
period 28 October 2020 and until 28 October 2021 in support of its plea that the Contested Patent is not valid.
3 No presumption of validity
The fact that at the time Hybrid Generator commenced the present proceedings on 16 August 2024, no
opposition proceedings against the patent had not been filed with the EPO, cannot be used as an indication of
validity, partly because a lack of opposition can never be equated with an acknowledgement of validity, but also
because the patent in suit was issued only two days beforehand and the opposition period does not expire until 14
May 2025.
4 The patent in suit is invalid
4.1 The patent in suit does not fulfil the requirement of novelty, cf. Articles 52(1) and
54(2) EPC As will become clear in the following, the patent in suit is granted with a scope that covers
Hybrid Generator's own products which have been sold and marketed, including mentioned and described publicly,
prior to the filing date of the Priority Application on 28 October 2020. The patent in suit is therefore invalid as it does
not fulfil the requirement of novelty, cf. articles 52(1) and 54(2) EPC.
The following are Exhibits A1-D1, which all show publicly available information from before the priority date of the patent
in suit, 28 October 2020.
Exhibits A1 and A2 are transcripts of http://hybridgenerator.dk/ in 2016, which shows in Exhibit A1 that in
April 2016, "Hybrid Generator Systems" were offered, explaining among other things: "In our hybrid
generators, the diesel engine is always kept inside ideal running conditions at 50 to 95% of its power
rating." At that time, Hybridgenerator was operated by Infotech Concept ApS, which was registered as
Hybridgenerator ApS on 18 May 2015.
Appendices B1-B3 are printouts of the applicant's website https://hybridgenerator.eu/, to which the
address http://hybridgenerator.dk/ (as mentioned in Appendices A1 and A2) refers to today.
Appendix B1 shows a picture of a hybrid generator dated 9 August 2020 and also describes:
"We are innovative and dedicated and have had only one focus from the start. Our
materials, chassis and design - from day one everything has been created for one purpose: to build the world's best
mobile hybrid generator!"
16
and further that the benefits of Hybridgenerator's products include
"Far better power quality, as our engine operates at the same load constantly. Where
other hybrid solutions often only deal with off-peak and low load periods, our products handle everything from the
hybrid module".
Appendix B2 states that it is an "LTO battery system" and under "Operation modes"
it states that "Load is isolated from motor. Perfect sinus power, as the grid." It also states that it is a trailer-based
solution: "Trailer based solution offers ease of on-site logistics, removing the requirement for lifting equipment".
Appendix C1 is a YouTube video from an online conference ("3rd International Conference on Small and
Medium Wind Energy") on 27-30 April 2020, where
Hybridgenerator, presents Hybridgenerator's hybrid generators and their use in the wind turbine industry.
As shown in Appendix C2, the video was published on YouTube on 4 June 2020.
In the video in Appendix C1, explains that conventional hybrid generators at the time were based on
a diesel generator that could handle the varying load. Conversely, the
the petitioner turned the concept upside down and instead looked at how the battery could be dimensioned to handle
peak loads, etc. and based on what size engine was then needed to recharge the battery at nominal load (see 04:00-
05:00).
Furthermore, (see 11:20-11:40) explains in the video that, especially for weight reasons, a motor
should be dimensioned significantly lower (e.g. only one third) than what it should be to handle peak loads, and that
it should only cover the nominal load. The rest is handled by the batteries, which act as a buffer. In the video,
(see 11:55-12:05) summarises that the motor is therefore isolated from the load and the motor is
used solely to charge the battery. This is also
is also emphasised later in the video (cf. 15:30-15:40) that the hybrid generator makes use of a separate charging system
and a separate inverter that runs all the time and that this results in a very grid-like output.
In the video, there is also information that a 1500 rpm motor is required (see 11:45-11:55), that the chassis is made of
plastic (16:50-17:30), and that a Lithium Titanate (LTO) battery is used (see 20:20-21:00). There are also several
pictures of the hybrid generator mentioned (e.g. 08:20-08:40 and 18:35-18:40) and mention that the hybrid generator
is mobile (see 05:40-05:50).
Appendix D1 is an article from the company Victron Energy, which reports on Hybrid Generator's use of
Victron inverters for hybrid generators. The article describes, among other things:
"The result is a range of sophisticated Hybrid Generators that flips things on their head - by using inverter
power as the primary high power source, together with a smaller supplementary diesel generator. In fact,
in many units inverter power is all that is required."
17
As can be seen from the above review of Appendix A1-D1, Hybrid Generator's own
Hybridgenerator's own hybrid generators were publicly disclosed before the priority date to have the same
characteristics as the invention in the patent in suit, in particular that the diesel generator always runs at optimal
operation (see Appendix A1: "In our hybrid
generators, the diesel engine is always kept inside ideal running conditions" and Appendix B1: "Far better power
quality, as our engine operates at the same load constantly.").
Below is a table showing, in the same way as stated by Hybridgenerator in its statement of case (see the request for
evidence on pages 14-16), that Hybridgenerator's own products before 28 October 2020 exhibit all features of claim 1
of the patent in suit (the claim matrix is also presented as Appendix E).
Features in claim 1 of the patent in
suit
Hybrid Generator's own disclosure prior to the
The priority date of the patent in suit on 28 October 2020
A mobile hybrid generator
system for providing grid-like AC
power output to a load at off-grid
locations,
See e.g. Appendix C1 at 5:40-5:50 (the hybrid generator is mobile)
and 15:30-15:40 (grid-like output). Both at 12:40-12:50 and at
20:00-20:10 it is also clear that this is an AC output.
Furthermore, as mentioned by Hybridgenerator under the same
point in the request for evidence on page 13:
"A network-like AC output is technically necessary for the hybrid
generator system to power all standard electrical devices, as
electrical devices are designed for specific AC outputs."
the hybrid generator system
comprising a housing
accommodating:
See for example pictures in Appendix B1 and in Appendix C1
between 08:20-08:40 and 18:35-18:40, from which it is clear that
the system has a
housing.
- a rechargeable electrical
energy storage unit, such as a
battery, configured to provide a DC
poweroutput,
In Appendix C1, for example at 20:20-21:00, it is mentioned that
a Lithium-Titanate (LTO) battery is used.
The use of LTO battery is also described in Appendix B2.
- at least a first primary
energysource, such as a
combustion engine, for charging
the rechargeable energy storage
unit, and
In Appendix C1, at 11:45-12:05, it is stated that the engine should
preferably be of a type that runs at 1500 rpm and that the engine is
isolated from the load and only charges the battery.
- an inverter unit configured for
converting the DC power
outputfrom the rechargeable
energystorage unit to the grid- like
ACpower output,
In Appendix C1, at 04:20-05:00, it is explained that the hybrid
generator has an inverter that provides the
output and that the battery is sized to support the inverter's
consumption. It is thus clear that the inverter converts DC
power from the battery to the output. It is also mentioned at
12:20- 12:30 that a Victron
Victron brand inverter is used.
18
wherein the mobile hybrid
generator is configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is
provided only from the
rechargeable energy storage unit
via the inverter unit, and
According to Appendix C1, at 15:30-15:55, and according to
Appendix B2, a very grid-like output is provided solely from the
inverter, which is separated from the charging system and isolated
from the engine. Thus, the inverter must draw
power from the battery, and the grid-like output is delivered
exclusively from the battery via the inverter.
The hybrid generator also writes under the same point in the
request for evidence on page 13:
"[...] that an alternative where the diesel engine also contributes
to the network-like alternating current would require the diesel
engine to operate at a correct rotational speed AND in phase
with the inverter. This would not only be a complicated solution,
but it would also lower the efficiency of the diesel engine against
the wishes
from HGsystems."
Similarly, this is clearly also against the wishes of the Hybrid
Generator itself at the time (see e.g. Appendix
B1), and this statement documents that the trait is found in
Hybridgenerator's products as shown in Appendix B1, B2 and
C1.
However, as explained below, the situation is different for the
Combat products, which do not exhibit this trait.
2) the output from the primary
energy source is only used to charge
the rechargeable energy
storage unit,
This is explicitly mentioned in Appendix C1, at 11:55-12:05, and
also clear from Appendix B2, which mentions that the output is
isolated from the motor.
both during normal mode
operation, having normal mode
power requirements, and during
peak power operation, having peak
power requirements,
It is clear from Appendix C1 that the above applies to both peak
power and nominal load. Peak power is, at 7:30- 7:40,
mentioned to be around 180 kW for a few
seconds, while the nominal load, at 11:20-11:35, is mentioned to
be significantly lower and that the motor should only be big
enough to handle the nominal load.
These therefore correspond to peak power operation and normal
mode operation respectively.
the mobile hybrid generator system
characterised in that the atleast first
primary energy sourceis
dimensioned to the
normalmode power
In Appendix C1, at 11:20-11:35, it is specifically mentioned that
the motor is sized to cover only the rated load to save weight and
that the motor can be one third the size of what it might
otherwise be.
19
requirements, i.e.much smaller
than for the peakpower
requirements.
4.2 Summary of invalidity (lack of novelty)
As stated above, claim 1 of the patent in suit does not fulfil the conditions for novelty, cf. Articles 52(1) and 54(2)
EPC. Therefore, the patent in suit cannot be considered valid and cannot form the basis for the evidence
preservation order. Alternatively, it entails at least that the presumption of
validity has been weakened to such an extent that the Contested Patent cannot form the basis of the evidence. For
these reasons, the Court's order of 16 August 2024 made pursuant to Article 60(1) and (2) of the UPC Agreement and
Rule 196 of the Rules of Procedure must be set aside, cf. Article 60(6) of the UPC Agreement and Rule 197(4) of the
Rules of Procedure.
In its statement of case, Hybridgenerator has stated that the features in subclaim 5 (fuel tank and combustion engine),
subclaim 6 (LTO battery), subclaim 7 (solar cells) and subclaim 13 (the hybrid system is mounted on a trailer) are also
assumed to be exhibited by the Contested Products. Hybrid Generator relies solely on claim 1 in support of its request,
and it is therefore merely noted that these features are also known from
Hybridgenerator's own products already before the priority date (see Exhibits A1-D1).
As Exhibits A1-D1 all refer to Hybridgenerator's own products and own publications prior to the priority date
the priority date, Hybridgenerator has been - or should have been - aware that the validity of the Contested Patent
with this information would be questioned. At the same time, as the court has been asked to make a decision on
interim measures without prior hearing of rekvisiti (ex parte), cf. Rule 197(1) of the Rules of Procedure, and thus
without rekvisiti being given a chance to clarify this to the court prior to the
order, Hybridgenerator should have informed the court of its own disclosures prior to the order.
the priority date and have clarified the validity of the Contested Patent in light thereof, cf. Rule 192(3) of the Rules of
Procedure. Hybridgenerator has thus not fulfilled its obligation under Rule 192(3) to
disclose all material of which Hybridgenerator was aware and which could have an impact on the court's decision.
5 The disputed products do not infringe claim 1 of the patent in suit
Claim 1 of the patent has the following content:
1. "A mobile hybrid generator system for providing grid-like AC power output to a
load at off-grid locations, the hybrid generator system comprising a housing accommodating:
- a rechargeable electrical energy storage unit, such as a battery, configured to
provide a DC power output,
- at least a first primary energy source, such as a combustion engine, for charging the
rechargeable energy storage unit, and
- an inverter unit configured for converting the DC power output from the rechargeable energy storage
unit to the grid-like AC power output,
20
wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the
inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy
storage unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power
operation, having peak power requirements,
the mobile hybrid generator system characterised in that the at least first primary energy source is
dimensioned to the normal mode power requirements, i.e.
much smaller than for the peak power requirements."
In Hybrid Generator's statement of case, it is referred to that the Combat Products, based on allegedly being
able to deliver a 24 kVA AC output and having a 'Stage V Cat' engine for charging, should fulfil the conditions:
1) "the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the
inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage
unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and
during peak power operation, having peak power requirements,"
However, this is not a correct assumption by Hybrid Generator. The contested products do not fulfil these
conditions in claim 1 of the patent.
In particular, it is important to note that claim 1 specifies that:
1) "the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter
unit" [my emphasis], and that
2) "the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage
unit" [my emphasis].
Furthermore, it is specifically stated that these two conditions must be met both in
a) 'normal mode operation' and at
b) 'peak power operation'.
21
It also appears from the description in the patent in suit, cf. Appendix 6, under 'Summary' on page 2, under
paragraph [0009] in the right-hand column, line 51, that:
"A key feature is that the presently mobile hybrid generator system preferably is configured and
dimensioned such that the AC power output is provided only from the inverter unit, both during normal mode
operation and during peak power operation, i.e. pure inverter based operation can be provided at all times. I.e.
the presently mobile hybrid generator system is preferably configured and dimensioned such that the AC power
output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the
inverter unit, both during normal mode operation and during peak power operation." [Emphasis not added, but
appears from the quote].
It further states under paragraph [0012] on page 3, left column, line 29, that:
"[0012] The present inventor has realized that with pure inverter based operation the power factor issue, usually
associated with generators, is much less of an issue, i.e. by dimensioning the inverter unit of the presently
disclosed hybrid generator system for the peak load requirements, much can be gained. In that regard it is noted
that a 90 kVA inverter unit can provide a power output of 180 kW for a few seconds with a suitable dimensioned
battery. With the inverter unit in itself being able to handle the peak power requirement, and if an engine is used
as the primary energy source, the engine can be dimensioned for
the normal mode operation, i.e. a much smaller and engine is required and the engine can be operated only
temporarily such that fuel efficiency and engine efficiency can be optimised. Under typical loading conditions the
load can be provided from the rechargeable energy source, and as the engine is only used for charging the
rechargeable energy source, operation of the engine can be reduced to a few hours per day - which should be
compared to close to 24 hour engine operation, even with state of the art hybrid generator systems." [my
emphasis].
From the description in the patent in suit, cf. Appendix 6, under the item 'Detailed description' on page 3, under
paragraph [0014] in the right-hand column, start line 20, it appears that:
"[0014] The presently disclosed hybrid generator system is preferably configured such that output from the
primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit - in that case the output from
the primary energy source cannot be used for the load. I.e. typically there is no direct connection between the
primary energy source and the inverter unit, in that case they are only
connected through the rechargeable energy storage unit." [my emphasis].
It is further stated in paragraph [0022] on page 4, right column, line 5, that:
"[0022] A major advantage of decoupling the primary energy source from the load, is that the primary energy
source can be operated completely independently, e.g. in terms of AC power frequency. AC power output is
usually provided at around 50 Hz. If the engine+ generator is connected to the load, 50 Hz requires an engine
speed of around 1500 RPM with a four pole generator. But a typical diesel engine does not operate efficiently at
1500 RPM. The primary energy source of the presently disclosed hybrid generator can be operated independently
of the load, such that in case of a primary AC power source,
22
the frequency of the AC power output from the primary energy source can be different than the frequency require
of the AC load."
However, the structure of the combat products is such that an internal combustion engine drives a direct current (DC)
generator. The DC power from the DC generator supplied by the combustion engine is used by the inverter to provide
an AC output (AC and grid-like output) if the hybrid generator is loaded, and to charge the batteries in cases where
the load is less than the output from
the DC generator. This means that at maximum load of the hybrid alternator, all power generated by the combustion
engine is used by the inverter to provide an AC output (alternating current or
grid-like output) at the same time as additional power is drawn from the batteries. This means that in this case, the
combustion engine is providing power that is not used to charge the batteries and the grid-like output is partially provided
by the combustion engine. With little or no load on the hybrid
the hybrid alternator, the excess power generated by the combustion engine is used to charge the batteries. This
means that in this case, the combustion engine supplies power that is partially not used to charge the batteries and
the grid-like output is supplied by the combustion engine.
It is therefore clear that the Combat Products do not fulfil the condition that the grid-like output is only
delivered from the rechargeable energy storage unit, i.e. the batteries. This is neither the case at maximum load nor at
medium load.
It is also clear that the Contested Products do not fulfil the condition that the output from 'the primary energy
source', i.e. the combustion engine, is only used to charge 'the rechargeable energy storage unit', i.e. the batteries.
Hybridgenerator writes in its statement of case (page 14):
"It is highly likely that the network-like alternating current is only supplied by the battery and inverter, because an
alternative where the diesel engine also contributes to the network-like alternating current would
require the diesel engine to operate at the correct speed AND in phase with the inverter. This would not only be a
complicated solution, but it would also lower the efficiency of the diesel engine against the wishes of HGsystems."
[my emphasis].
However, as described above, this is not the case for the Strid products, as they utilise a direct current (DC) generator that
supplies direct current to both the battery and inverter (and thus the output).
In this case, the speed of the diesel engine is irrelevant, as the diesel engine drives a DC generator that does not affect the
phase of the inverter or the output.
Furthermore, Hybridgenerator writes in its statement of case (page 14):
"If the diesel engine (primary energy source) is used to directly supply network-like alternating current, then a 4-
cylinder diesel engine must operate at 1500 revolutions, but a typical diesel engine is not efficient there."
23
However, it doesn't matter if a diesel engine is inefficient if it is used to directly supply
network-like alternating current. The wording of claim 1 of the patent requires that the output from the engine is only
used to charge the batteries. An efficiently running diesel engine can very well be used to both charge the batteries
and supply power to the inverter, bypassing the batteries for the output, as is the case in
the Strid products.
It is thus clear that the Disputed Products do not fall under claim 1 of the Disputed Patent, and it is also clear that
Hybrid Generator's justifications do not show that this is the case. It is therefore not likely that the Contested Products
would infringe the Contested Patent. Conversely, it seems more likely than unlikely that the Contested Products do
not infringe the patent, as they do not fulfil essential features of the main claims of the patent.
6 Either the Contested Patent is invalid or there is no infringement
Appendix A1-D1 shows disclosure of Hybrid Generator's hybrid generators prior to the priority date. It is a
requirement for the validity of a European patent, cf. Articles 52(1) and 54(2) EPC, that it is new, and it is therefore
not possible for the Contested Patent to be valid and at the same time cover a hybrid generator that does not differ
significantly from Hybridgenerator's own hybrid generators as shown in Appendix A1-D1.
This means that if the court reaches the conclusion that the Dispute Patent is valid, notwithstanding the
comments in relation to the lack of validity above under section D4, this will mean that the Contested Products cannot
infringe the Contested Patent. This is because Hybrid Generator's
argumentation is based on an interpretation of claim 1, which has already been published by Hybridgenerator itself
prior to the priority date. The Dispute Patent is therefore either invalid due to lack of novelty, and if the court does not
follow this argumentation, then it is clear that the Dispute Products cannot constitute an
infringement of the patent in suit.
7 The requirements for the preservation of evidence
7.1 The requirement of proof
Article 60(1) of the UPC Agreement makes the preservation of evidence conditional on the applicant being
able to provide 'reasonably available evidence'.
7.2 Proportionality requirement
An evidence gathering investigation is a quite intrusive legal remedy that must at all times fulfil the requirement of
proportionality, cf. Article 42 of the UPC Agreement on the general proportionality requirement and
the proportionality requirement of the Enforcement Directive, which applies generally, see Article 3(2). This also applies
to Article 60, which follows from the fact that the provision is based on the Law Enforcement Directive and that
The UPC must respect EU law, cf. Articles 20 and 24(1) of the UPC Agreement.
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which applies when implementing EU law, cf. Article 51(1) of the Charter, thus
also contains general provisions on the protection of privacy in Articles 7 and 8. Interference with these is subject to a
general principle of proportionality, cf. Article 52(1). The UPC rules on evidence preservation are an implementation
of the EU Law Enforcement Directive, which is why the Charter and thus
24
the principle of proportionality applies. However, a principle of proportionality is also partially implied in Article 60(1)
in fine, which states that the preservation of evidence requires the protection of confidential information.
Therefore, evidence gathering can only be carried out with due regard to the proportionality of the interference.
7.3 The conditions in relation to the individual subjects
Hybrid Generator's request for preservation of evidence of 16 August 2024 is directed against no less than
five parties (collectively referred to as the respondents):
1. HGSystem HG
2. System Holding
3. Infotech Concept
4. Infotech Holding and
5. (personally).
It is submitted that this case has no relation to the last four above. Assuming that Hybridgenerator believes that it has
a legitimate interest in securing evidence in relation to the Conflicting Products, it is argued that such a case can only
be directed against HGSystem. However, the other four - HGSystem Holding, Infotech Concept, Infotech Holding and
should never have been involved in the case.
It is only HGSystem's activities that relate to the Conflict Products.
In relation to HGSystem Holding and Infotech Holding (which are holding companies for HGSystem and Infotech
Concept), Hybridgenerator states that the preservation of evidence is aimed at these companies 'to counter the not
unlikely event that has placed relevant evidence in the holding companies'. Nowhere is it even claimed
or attempted to imply that these companies have any relation to the Disputed Products, but merely included on a
general and undocumented consideration that could potentially have stored evidence in these
companies. There is no evidence of this, let alone a probability that this is the case, just as it is disputed to be the case.
Thus, there is no reason why the request for preservation of evidence against HGSystem Holding and Infotech Holding
should be necessary, cf. Rule 192(2)(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. The evidentiary requirement is not met and the
request is not proportionate. For this reason, the order must also be cancelled in relation to HGSystem Holding and
Infotech Holding. Hybridgenerator seems to have recognised this in connection with the filing of the case on the
the case on the merits, as the two companies are not included in this action.
25
In continuation of the above, we understand that a lawsuit has been filed regarding the reality of the Hybrid Generator on
26.
September 2024 (however, we have still not received any official information from the local Danish UPC branch in
Copenhagen). HGSystem Holding and Infotech Holding are apparently not part of the
case on the merits of the case. Against this background, the Court must ensure that the preservation order is
cancelled or revoked or otherwise cease to have effect for these companies, cf. Rule 198 of the Rules of Procedure.)
In relation to Infotech Concept, Hybridgenerator's reasons for including the company in the
The evidence in the case shows that the company is the registrant of the domain hgsystem.dk. None of the
documents in the case indicate that Infotech Concept has any relation to the Disputed Products.
On the contrary. Infotech Concept is the registered holder of the domain for the simple reason that HGSystem had not
yet been founded when the domain was acquired. Moreover, based on the documents presented, there can be no
doubt that HGSystem is the owner of the domain, which is why it is not necessary to involve Infotech Concept (it
should be noted that Hybridgenerator has also stated in its application that the website at the domain hgsystem.dk
appears as a company website for HGSystem). The evidentiary requirement is therefore not met and the request is not
proportional. For this reason, the order must also be cancelled in relation to Infotech Concept.
Finally, in relation to personally, Hybridgenerator's reasoning in the request is that the LinkedIn
and Facebook posts in Appendices 31-38, Appendices 41-45, Appendices 47-59 and Appendices 65-66 originate from
personal LinkedIn profile and personal Facebook profile, and that
and that it is therefore 'likely' that has used the knowledge he has from his
employment at Hybridgenerator to The latter is purely an expression of
Hybridgenerator's speculation, and no evidence has been presented to prove this to be the case,
Just as it is not proportional to build an evidence protection case on a completely unsubstantiated assumption that a
former employee may have used his knowledge of the company for personal gain after his employment. Such an
attack must be supported by documentation that points to this being the case. In this case, no attempt has even been
made to prove this - we only have the petitioner's conjecture. Furthermore, it is noted that has not
personally marketed or sold the Disputed Products. This applies despite the activity that, as shown in the appendices,
has been in relation to HGSystems' products, including
The disputed products (as the appendices also relate to products that are not the subject of this case).
It is clear from the social media posts presented, for example if you look at appendices 8 and 9, that the posts -
regardless of the fact that they are made on his personal social media profiles - are made under the
auspices of
HGSystem. In both appendices 8 and 9, it can be seen that the cover image is an advert for HGSystem. The posts
are therefore made under the auspices of HGSystem and in It is quite usual that
directors (and lower ranking employees) are marketing the company they work for via their personal social media
profiles. This does not indicate that personally marketed or sold the Strid products. Thus, there is no
reason why the request for preservation of evidence against should be necessary, cf. Rule 192(2)(1)(c)
of the Rules of Procedure. The evidentiary requirement is not met and the request is not proportional - especially in
light of the fact that
is personally involved in the case, cf. Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on the protection of
privacy. For this reason, the order must also be cancelled in relation to
26
Overall, it is claimed that Hybridgenerator has involved parties that are not relevant to
and in relation to whom it has not been proven, substantiated or at least pointed to objective circumstances that
suggest a connection to the subject matter of the case. This in itself means that
the evidentiary requirement for the preservation of evidence is not met, and the preservation of evidence is not
necessary or otherwise proportional.
For this reason, the evidence warrant must be cancelled in relation to HGSystem Holding, Infotech Concept, Infotech
Holding and Infotech Concept.
8 The object of the evidence preservation order
It should be noted that, by notice of 16 September 2024, the respondent made a number of objections to the subject
matter and scope of the preservation of evidence, including the search terms presented by Hybridgenerator, to which no
further comments have been received from either the court or Hybridgenerator. The comments made in the letter are
upheld, to which reference is also made.
9 Legal costs
Rekvisiti requests an award of reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses, cf.
Article 69(1) of the UPC Agreement. The determination of costs shall take into account to ensure that a
substantial and appropriate part of the reasonable costs incurred by the successful party is borne by the losing party,
cf. Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 of the European Parliament and of the Council as interpreted by the European Court
of Justice in its judgment of 28 July 2016 in Case C-57/15 (United Video Properties).
An overview of the costs incurred and the allocation thereof in connection with the oral hearing will be presented for the
court's decision on costs.
This applies in particular to HGSystem Holding and Infotech Holding, which are not part of the case on the merits.
10 Compensation for unlawful interference
Rekvisiti also seeks damages for the unlawfully conducted evidence collection. Article 60(9) of the UPC Agreement states
that the person requesting the application of a provisional remedy may
be liable to pay damages if he fails to commence the main proceedings in due time, and damages may be awarded for
unauthorised use of provisional measures, see also Rules 198(2) and 354(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
2. Rekvisiti seeks both appropriate damages and compensation for pain and suffering.
..."
Rekvisiti's pleading of 29 October 2024:
"...
C SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF CASE AND PLEAS
27
1 The Contested Products do not infringe the claims of the Contested Patent 1
As already explained in the request for reconsideration of the order to preserve evidence, the Disputed Products do not
exhibit features 1.6-1.8 of claim 1 of the Disputed Patent.
In particular, it is emphasised that claim 1 in features 1.6 and 1.7 specifies that:
1) "the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter
unit" [my emphasis], and that
2) "the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit"
[my emphasis].
Furthermore, it is specifically stated that these two conditions, see feature 1.8, must be met both in
a) 'normal mode operation' and at
b) 'peak power operation'.
Reference is also made to the quotations from the description of the patent in suit, which are inserted in the request
for reconsideration of the order on preservation of evidence section D5 on pages 10-11.
In connection with the filing of the Patent Application on 28 October 2021, Hybridgenerator filed a cover letter (so-called
"PCT Direct") with comments on the application and in particular on the EPO search report of 13 April 2021
related to the Priority Application.
It appears from the cover letter that claim 1 of the Priority Application, which contained the following limitation in the
Priority Application:
"the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the inverter unit, both during normal mode
operation and during peak power operation,"
was amended upon filing of the Patent Application to add features 1.6-1.8 to claim 1 of the patent in suit, which
specifies that:
1) "the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable
energy storage unit via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the
28
rechargeable energy storage unit, both during normal mode operation, having normal mode
power requirements, and during peak power operation, having peak power requirements,"
From Hybridgenerator's argumentation in the letter of 28 October 2021, it appears that the above was introduced
precisely for the purpose of claim 1 thus differing from the cited counterclaims in the EPO search report related to the
priority application. In the letter, cf. Appendix K on pages 2-3, Hybridgenerator wrote with respect to GB 2 493 631 A
(hereinafter "GB 631") (cited as D1 in the EPO search report):
"As seen from the citations above the battery in D1 is provided to either assist the genset during peak power
operation (par. 12), provide sufficient power for operation during very low load conditions such
that the engine can be turned off (par. 15) or provide for a transient power request, such that the engine can be
ramped up and then provide the load (par. 16).
Hence, the hybrid generator system in D1 is NOT configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage device
via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy
storage unit,
both during normal mode operation and during peak power operation.
This fact is most clearly contradicted in par. 15 where it is explicitly stated that the system automatically restarts
the engine and operates the engine at an efficient load point by powering the load and charging the battery
simultaneously.
Thus, present claim 1 is novel over D1"
On page 3 of the letter (Appendix K), Hybridgenerator wrote with respect to GB 2434928 A1 (hereinafter "GB 928")
(cited as D2):
"[...] The inverter is specified as follows in claim 1 of D2:
an inverter electrically connected to the DC generator and to the one or more battery cells, the
inverter configured to convert DC electricity produced by the DC generator and DC electricity
discharged from the one or more battery cells to alternating current ("AC")
electricity, the AC electricity available for use by a load.
Cf. also figs. 1 and 2 where the inverter is directly connected to both the DC generator and the battery. Hence, the
hybrid generator system in D2 is not configured such that
29
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage device
via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy
storage unit,
both during normal mode operation and during peak power operation. Thus
present claim 1 is novel in view of D2"
In relation to US 2014/277791 A1 (hereinafter "US 791") (cited as D4), on page 4 of the letter, see Appendix K,
Hybridgenerator emphasised that claim 1 of the patent in suit differed based on the modified features:
"Par. 29 states as follows:
[0029] A hybrid generator (e.g., HYGENTM), such as described herein, fills a longstanding need in the portable
generator set arena by addressing current problems such as generators operating very
inefficiently and consuming copious quantities of fuel running at partial load. In one embodiment of the invention,
the generator may be forced to operate at its most efficient power setting (e.g., prime power), regardless of the
user demand. An embodiment may be able to operate a generator at it most efficient power setting because of an
on-board battery storage which may allow excess energy to be stored if the user demand is less than a generator's
optimum operating regime. If, for example, the user demand is
well-matched to the power output, then very little power may be sent to the batteries. Alternatively, if the load is
poorly matched to the generator's output, (as is usually the case), then a significant fraction of the generator's
output may be stored in the batteries. Once the batteries are charged, the engine may be shut off and the batteries
may operate the user load for many hours without the generator operating saving substantial fuel, reducing noise,
and reducing emissions.
Hence, the hybrid generator system in D4 is not configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage device
via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy
storage unit,
both during normal mode operation and during peak power operation.
As cited above D4 explicitly states that the engine-generator distributes power between the load and the battery.
Thus present claim 1 is novel in view of D4."
It is thus clear from Hybrid Generator's comments in the letter of 28 October 2021 and from the claim amendments in
relation to the Priority Application that these features 1.6-1.8 are essential for whether claim 1 is novel, and
thus also for the interpretation of the scope of claim 1.
30
In particular, it can be concluded that, after the introduction of features 1.6-1.8, claim 1 of the patent in suit explicitly
does not make a connection between output from "primary energy source" and "inverter". According to
Hybridgenerator, this is conversely the case for the above-mentioned prior art, where Hybridgenerator has pointed to
the following
reasons why the counterclaims are not detrimental to the novelty of claim 1 of the Contested Patent:
- In relation to GB 631 (D1), Hybridgenerator emphasises that in paragraph 15 it is mentioned that the
engine can simultaneously supply power for both the load and for charging the batteries.
- In relation to GB 928 (D2), Hybridgenerator highlights figures 1 and 2, which show that the inverter
is directly connected to both the DC generator and the battery.
- In relation to US 791 A1 (D4), Hybrid Generator highlights that paragraph 29 describes that
excess power from the generator is stored in batteries if the load is less than
generator output at optimal operation, but that if the load is equal to the generator output, (almost) all
power from the generator is directed to the load.
The hybrid generator also points to features 1.6-1.8 as essential to the invention, which is described in the patent in suit.
For example, it is stated in the pleading of 22 October 2024 (on page 6) that:
"This is not correct, and the Petitioner forgets that both 1) and 2) must be present for both peak power operation and
normal mode operation." [my emphasis]
However, as also described in the request for reconsideration of the order for the preservation of evidence, the
Combat Products are designed so that an internal combustion engine drives a direct current (DC) generator, which
supplies
direct current on a common DC bus, to which the batteries and inverter are also connected. In other words, there is a
direct connection between the DC generator and the inverter. This is exactly the same principle as mentioned in both
GB 631 (D1) where the engine can simultaneously supply power to both the load and to charge the batteries, as in GB
928 where the inverter is directly coupled to both the DC generator and the battery, and as in US 791 where excess
power from the generator can be stored in the batteries, but where all generator output can be consumed by the
inverter if the load is the same or greater than the generator output.
In other words, the DC generator, batteries and inverter in the Contested Products are coupled in the same way as
described in the three counterclaims mentioned above. In other words, the Contested Products function in precisely
the way that Hybridgenerator has deliberately written out of the patent claim in order to ensure that the solution did
not include the solution that appeared in the counterclaims. An exercise to counter the EPO's objections to the lack of
novelty of
Claim 1 of the priority application in the EPO search report.
The connection between the DC generator, batteries and inverter in the Contested Products can be seen in the
following images of the Contested Products (the table below is presented as Appendix Q and the individual images as
Appendix R).
31
Description of the products Photos of the Combat Products
This image shows the complete
Combat Product - a
trailer-based hybrid generator.
This image shows the diesel engine
and the inverter unit
the inverter unit before they
are installed on the trailer,
seen in the background.
This image shows the
the battery element before it is
installed in the trailer, and without
the top cover fitted.
As you can see, the
battery element is mounted with
one continuous DC busbar on one
side, and one
another continuous DC bus
bar on the opposite side.
These are connected to the
negative and positive poles
of the battery element, as
can be seen in the picture.
32
This image is taken along the
direction of travel of the trailer
before the motor, inverter
and diesel tank are installed.
The image is taken from the engine
insertion compartment, which can
be seen, among other things
the ventilation duct on the
right.
The picture also shows
the battery element lying down in
the centre compartment.
Also visible on the left side of the
battery pack is one end of the single
DC bus bar
bus bar to which one DC output
terminal of the motor is connected.
The other through DC bus bar is
located behind the ventilation duct
on the right and is therefore not
visible in this picture.
image.
This image shows the
the diesel engine, with associated
DC generator, for installation in
the engine compartment shown
above. As can be seen, the
engine has a square cooling
unit that fits in the vent
duct as shown above.
The DC generator supplies direct
current (DC output) via six cables,
three
with negative polarity and
three with positive polarity,
which, upon installation, are
connected
33
to one and the other DC bus
bar respectively.
This image is taken from
the centre of the trailer
where the diesel tank is
installed,
towards the engine compartment.
The picture shows the top of the
engine compartment ventilation
duct.
From the image you can see the six
cables that supply DC power from
the DC generator, three going
towards
one (positive) DC busbar and three
going to the
other (negative) DC busbar.
This image shows the right
side (in relation to the
direction of travel) of the
trailer's inverter
compartment where the
inverter unit is installed.
The battery element is seen at the
bottom right of the image.
The image shows the
connection of a series of safety
switches to one of the two
continuous DC busbars that run
along the right side of the
trailer.
side of the trailer.
34
This image shows the
the inverter unit partially
installed in the trailer's inverter
compartment.
It can be seen from the image that
cables for supplying DC input to
the inverter are red and black
respectively and
pulled to the left and right side
respectively for subsequent
coupling to one and the
through DC bus bar
respectively.
This image shows the connection
of the red cables from the inverter
to the safety switches on
one through DC bus bar, as shown
in the previous picture.
35
The connection between motor, battery and inverter is also shown in the 3D visualisations of the Combat Products below,
shown in perspective and from above (presented as Appendix S):
From the above images and figures, the coupling between the motor/DC generator, battery element and inverter in
the Combat Products can be schematically illustrated as follows (presented as Appendix T):
36
It is
It is thus clear that the power from the DC generator, which is driven by the combustion engine,
is not decoupled from the DC input of the inverter, but rather directly connected by the two DC bus-bars
running along the length of the trailer on the left and right sides respectively.
The diagram also shows that the connection between the motor/DC generator, battery element and inverter in
the Combat Products is realised as known from the counterparts highlighted above, e.g. from US 791, which in
figure 6 (lower right part) shows the same schematic coupling between motor/generator,
battery element and inverter (section of Figure 6 from US 791, see Appendix L, coloured according to the
diagram of the Combat Products):
The current from the combustion engine/DC generator is therefore used by the inverter to provide an AC output
(alternating current and grid-like output) if the hybrid generator is loaded, and to charge the batteries in cases
where the load is less than the output of the DC generator.
At maximum load of the Combat Products, all power is generated by the combustion engine,
thus used by the inverter to provide an AC output (alternating current and grid-like output) while additional power is
drawn from the batteries. This means that in this case, the internal combustion engine is supplying
37
power that is not used to charge the batteries and that the grid-like output is partially supplied by the combustion engine.
With little or no load on the Combat Products, the excess power generated by the combustion engine is used to charge
the batteries. This means that in this case the combustion engine also supplies power that is partially not used to charge
the batteries and that the grid-like output is, at least partially, supplied by the combustion engine.
This is exactly as described in paragraph 29 of US 791, and as shown in figures 1 and 2 of GB 928, which Hybrid
Generator in the letter of 28 October 2021 with the amendment to claim 1 highlighted as being outside the
scope of protection of claim 1 of the patent in suit.
It is therefore clear that the Combat Products do not fulfil feature 1.6 in requirement 1, which requires that the grid-like
output is only supplied from the rechargeable energy storage unit, i.e. the batteries. This is neither
the case at maximum load or medium load, see feature 1.8.
It is also clear that the Combat Products do not fulfil the condition that the output from 'the primary energy
source', i.e. the combustion engine, is only used to charge 'the rechargeable energy storage unit', i.e. the
batteries, cf. feature 1.7.
Hybridgenerator writes in its statement of case (page 14):
"It is highly likely that the network-like alternating current is only supplied by the battery and inverter, because an
alternative where the diesel engine also contributes to the network-like alternating current would
require the diesel engine to operate at the correct speed AND in phase with the inverter. This would not only be a
complicated solution, but it would also lower the efficiency of the diesel engine against the wishes of HGsystems."
[my first emphasis].
However, as described above, this is not the case for the Strid products, as these utilise a
direct current (DC) generator that supplies direct current via through and common DC bus-bars to both the battery
and inverter (and thus the output). The rotational speed of the diesel engine is secondary, as
the diesel engine drives a DC generator, which thus does not influence the phase of the inverter or the output.
Furthermore, Hybridgenerator writes in its statement of case (page 14):
"If the diesel engine (primary energy source) is used to directly supply network-like AC power then a 4 cylinder
diesel engine must operate at 1500 rpm,
but a typical diesel engine is not efficient there."
However, it doesn't matter if a diesel engine is inefficient if it is used to directly supply
network-like alternating current. The wording of claim 1 of the patent in suit requires that the output from the engine is
only
38
used only to charge the batteries. However, a diesel engine can very well be used to both charge the batteries and
supply power to the inverter, bypassing the batteries for the output, as it is
the case in the Disputed Products, as well as in several of the counterclaims cited during the proceedings, while
running efficiently.
Exhibit U is a written witness statement from confirming that the connection between the DC
generator, batteries and inverter in the Disputed Products is as described above.
It is thus clear that the Contested Products do not exhibit all the features of claim 1 of the Contested Patent, and it is
equally clear that Hybrid Generator's justifications do not document that this is the case either. Thus, it has not been
established that the Contested Products infringe the Contested Patent. Conversely, it seems more likely than unlikely
that the Contested Products do not infringe the Contested Patent, as they do not fulfil essential features of the main
claims of the Contested Patent, which Hybridgenerator has deliberately narrowed down in connection with the filing
of the Patent Application and otherwise emphasised as central to distinguish
The scope of protection of the patent in suit from the prior art.
2 The patent in suit is invalid
2.1 Introduction
The patent in suit lacks novelty in relation to a number of patent applications published prior to the filing date of the
priority application on 28 October 2020. Of these, two such patent applications are selected and presented below, cf.
sections C2.2 and C2.3, reserving the right to present additional
novelty defence in connection with the main proceedings. The patent in suit is therefore invalid on the basis of
Articles 52(1) and 54(2) EPC.
Furthermore, as explained in the request for reconsideration of the order to preserve evidence, the scope of the
patent in suit covers Hybridgenerator's own products, which are sold and
marketed, including publicly mentioned and described, prior to the filing date of the
The priority application on 28 October 2020. Reference is made to section D4.1 on pages 5-8 of the application. The
patent in suit is therefore invalid as it does not fulfil the requirement of novelty, cf. articles 52(1) and 54(2) EPC.
Furthermore, the patent in suit lacks inventive step in relation to the prior art at the filing date of the Priority Application,
see section C2.4. For this reason, the patent in suit is also invalid, see article 56 EPC.
This will be explained in the following sections.
In the following, reference will be made to this feature classification of claim 1 of the patent in suit, which is
otherwise identical to the Hybrid Generator's feature classification:
Features Claim 1 of the patent in suit
1.1 A mobile hybrid generator system for providing grid-like AC power output to a load at offgrid
locations,
1.2 the hybrid generator system comprising a housing accommodating:
1.3 - a rechargeable electrical energy storage unit, such as a battery, configured to provide aDC power
output,
39
1.4 - at least a first primary energy source, such as a combustion engine, for charging the rechargeable
energy storage unit, and
1.5 - an inverter unit configured for converting the DC power output from the rechargeableenergy
storage unit to the grid-like AC power output,
wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1.6 1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unitvia the
inverter unit, and
1.7 2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy
storage unit,
1.8 both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power
operation, having peak power requirements,
1.9 the mobile hybrid generator system characterised in that the at least first primary energy source is
dimensioned to the normal mode power requirements, i.e. much smaller than for the peak power
requirements
2.2 The patent in suit is not new compared to GB 2434928 A1 ("GB 928")
59. GB 928 (presented as Appendix F) describes a generator ("a generator set"), which includes an internal
combustion engine, a direct current generator ("DC generator"), one or more battery cells and an inverter (see
Appendix F, page 1, lines 23-24).
GB 928 also describes an example in which the DC generator driven by the internal combustion engine does not
supply power to the inverter, but supplies all the power for charging the batteries, and where power to the inverter is
supplied by the DC generator.
the inverter, and thus the output, is supplied solely from the batteries (see Appendix F, page 5, lines 22-27). Finally, GB
928 also describes that the maximum load ("surge rating") is dictated by the size and/or capability of the batteries and
the size and/or capability of the batteries and inverter, and that a higher maximum load can be achieved than would
be the case for a generator without battery and inverter (see Appendix F, page 6, line 2-6). It is therefore
it is clear that GB 928 refers to a hybrid generator where the combustion engine is not capable of delivering the maximum
load and where the engine is therefore dimensioned smaller than the requirements for the maximum load.
As can be seen, GB 928 shows an example of a patent application, published before the priority date of the
Contested Patent, which describes the same elements as claim 1 of the Contested Patent. Below is a table showing
that GB 928 exhibits all features of claim 1 of the Dispute Patent (the claim matrix is also presented as Appendix G):
Features of claim 1 of the patent in
suit
GB 928 (Appendix F)
1.1 A mobile hybrid generator
system for providing grid-like
Figures 4A-4D clearly show a mobile system on page 3,
lines 29-31 further explains: "For example, the
40
AC power output to a load at
off-grid locations,
engine 115 may be an internal combustion engine sized
such that the generator set 105 can be easily moved from
one location to another (i.e. a portable generator
set)."Page 4, lines 9-12 further explain: "In some
embodiments, the inverter 125 converts DC electricity to a
60 hertz ("Hz") 120 volt AC source", and alternatively: "For
example, the inverter 125 may convert DC electricity to a
50 hertz signal and/or a 240 volt AC voltage source." This
corresponds to
The patent in suit's own definition of "gridlike AC power"
(see paragraph [0010] of the patent in suit).
1.2 the hybrid generator system
comprising a housing
accommodating:
Figures 4A-4D clearly show that the system has a housing
accommodating the components of the system.Page 4, lines
21-22 further describes: "In one embodiment, the batteries
130 are integrated into or housed within the
generator set 105."
1.3 - a rechargeable electrical
energystorage unit, such as a
battery,configured to provide a DC
power output,
Page 1, line 28-page 2, line 2: "The inverter converts DC
electricity produced by the DC generator and DC electricity
discharged from the one or more battery cells to
alternating current ("AC") electricity."
Page 5, line 2-3: "Once the batteries 130 are at least
partially charged, the batteries 130 can provide a DC
voltage to the inverter 125."
1.4 - at least a first primary energy
source, such as a combustion
engine, for charging the
rechargeable energy storage unit,
and
Page 4, line 27-page 5, line 1: "During use, the engine 115
provides the mechanical force needed to drive the generator
120." And further "The DC generator 120 also provides a DC
voltage to the batteries 130, which charges the batteries 130
until they reach a certain capacity." It is therefore clear that
an engine 115 is used to charge the batteries.
1.5 - an inverter unit configured for
converting the DC power output
from the rechargeable energy
storage unit to the grid- like AC
power output,
Page 5, lines 2-4: "Once the batteries 130 are at least
partially charged, the batteries 130 can provide a DC voltage
to the inverter 125, which converts the DC voltage to power
the load 105."
wherein the mobile hybrid
generator is configured such
that
1.6 1) the grid-like AC power output is
provided only from the
rechargeable energy storage unit
via the inverter unit, and
Fig. 1 shows a block diagram where it can be seen that
the DC generator 120 supplies power to both the inverter
(125) and the batteries (130). However, on page 5, lines 26-
27, it is described that the system can alternatively be
configured so that the inverter
powered exclusively by power from the batteries: "In this
41
alternative embodiment, the DC voltage is supplied to
the inverter 125 by the batteries 130 only."
1.7 2) the output from the primary
energy source is only used to charge
the rechargeable energy storage
unit,
As mentioned above, it is described on page 5, lines 22-
23, in conjunction with the above, describes that the
system can be configured so that the DC generator (driven
by the 115 motor) does not supply power to the inverter,
but that all of the power from the DC generator is used to
charge the batteries: "the DC generator 120 does not
supply voltage to the inverter 125, and routes all of the
voltage to the batteries 130 to charge them."
1.8 both during normal mode
operation, having normal mode
power requirements, and during
peak power operation, having
peak power requirements,
From page 6, lines 2-6, it is clear that the described hybrid
generator has the advantage that the battery and inverter
handle peak loads ("power surge"):
"However, in some embodiments of the present
invention, the surge rating is dictated by the size
and/or capabilities of the batteries
130 and the inverter 125. As such, a relatively higher surge
rating may be gained by a generator (such as the generator
115) that includes an inverter 125 and one or more
batteries 130, than a generator that does not include
batteries and an inverter."
It is thus clear that the above coupling between engine,
battery and inverter applies both in normal operation and
at high loads.
1.9 the mobile hybrid generator system
characterised in that the at least
first primary energy source is
dimensioned to the normal
mode power requirements, i.e.
much smaller than for the peak
power requirements.
On page 6, lines 2-6 it is described that the surge rating is
dictated by the size and/or capability of the batteries and
inverter, and that a higher maximum load can be achieved
than it would be
the case of a generator without battery and inverter:
"However, in some embodiments of the present invention,
the surge rating is dictated by the size and/or capabilities of
the batteries 130 and the inverter 125. As such, a relatively
higher surge rating may be gained by a generator (such as
the generator 115) that includes an inverter 125 and one or
more batteries 130, than a generator that does not include
batteries and an inverter."
This makes it clear that the engine is not capable of
delivering the maximum load and that the engine is
therefore rated less than the requirements for the maximum
load.
42
It is thus clear that GB 928 deprives novelty for claim 1 of the patent in suit and that the patent in suit is thus
invalid due to lack of novelty.
It is noted that GB 928 was disclosed by the examiner at the EPO in connection with the examination of the
Contested Patent. The application was first disclosed in connection with the search report for
the priority application (presented as Appendix H) and later also mentioned in the international search report
(presented as Appendix I) and in the international preliminary patentability assessment (presented as Appendix
J). During the prosecution, GB 928 is referred to as "D2".
However, in connection with the prosecution, it is important to note that Hybridgenerator in a letter dated 28
October 2021 (submitted as Appendix K), which was filed together with the filing of the Patent Application, argues
that GB 928 does not deprive claim 1 of novelty, as GB 928 in Figs. 1 and 2 shows that the inverter is directly coupled
to both the DC generator and the battery, and therefore, in
Hybrid Generator's opinion, does not show the features 1.6-1.8:
1) "the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the
inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage
unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power operation,
having peak power requirements,"
However, this is not correct, as shown above, as GB 928 also, see Appendix F on page 5,
lines 22-27, describes that the system may alternatively be configured such that the inverter is powered solely by
power from the batteries and the DC generator is used solely for charging the batteries:
"In an alternative embodiment, the DC generator 120 does not supply voltage to the inverter 125, and
routes all of the voltage to the batteries 130 to charge them. The engine 115 continues to operate until
the batteries 130 reach a predetermined charge level (e.g., full capacity, 95% capacity, etc.). Upon
sufficient charge of the batteries 130, the engine 115 shuts down. In this alternative embodiment, the
DC voltage is supplied to the inverter 125 by the batteries 130 only."
The case examiner has not commented further on GB 928 during the case processing, and it is therefore
therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the examiner has mistakenly relied on Hybridgenerator's incorrect
comment in the letter of 28 October 2021 (Appendix K), and on that basis incorrectly assessed that claim 1 had novelty
over GB 928.
2.3 The patent in suit is not new compared to US 2014/277791 A1 ("US 791")
43
US 791 (presented as Exhibit L) describes a hybrid generator comprising a fuel powered engine that drives an alternator,
one or more batteries that receive and store power from the alternator, and
power from the generator, and an inverter to convert power from the batteries to provide alternating current to a
load (see paragraph [0005]). US 791 also describes in paragraph [00029] that when the batteries are charged, the
engine can be switched off and the batteries can then provide the necessary power to the load for several hours.
Finally, US 791 also describes in paragraph [00049] that the inverter can be dimensioned to deliver 300-400% power
compared to the alternator driven by the engine, and that this means that the alternator only needs to be
dimensioned for an average load - and not for maximum load. It is therefore clear that the generator driven by the
combustion engine is dimensioned less than the requirements for the maximum load.
As seen below, US 791 shows another example of a patent application published before the priority date that
discloses all claim elements of claim 1 of the Dispute Patent. Below is a table showing that US 791 exhibits all
features of claim 1 of the Dispute Patent (the claim matrix is also presented as Appendix M):
Features of claim 1 of the patent in
suit
US 791 (Appendix L)
1.1 A mobile hybrid generator system
for providing grid-like AC power
output to a load at off-grid
locations,
Figure 1-5 clearly shows a trailer-based system -
i.e. a mobile system. This is also mentioned in
paragraph [00031]: "Portable hybrid generator 100
includes a hybrid generator coupled to a portable trailer
frame."Paragraph [0005] mentions that US 791 refers to a
hybrid generator providing "usable
electcitity for AC or DC loads" i.e. grid-like alternating
current for a load.
1.2 the hybrid generator system
comprising a housing
accommodating:
Figure 1-5 clearly shows that the system has a housing
accommodating the system components.
1.3 - a rechargeable electrical energy
storage unit, such as a battery,
configured to provide a DC
poweroutput,
Clause [0005] mentions that the hybrid generator
includes one or more batteries to store power; from
clause [00027] and from Figure 6, bottom right, it is clear
that the batteries are in a DC system and thus
supply direct current.
1.4 - at least a first primary
energysource, such as a
combustion engine, for charging
the rechargeable energy storage
unit, and
Paragraph [0005] mentions that the hybrid generator
includes a combustion engine and a generator coupled to
the engine, and that the batteries receive and store
power from the generator. Figure 6, in the lower right
part, also shows that the diesel engine drives a generator
that supplies alternating current to a rectifier, which
supplies direct current to, among other things
the batteries.
1.5 - an inverter unit configured for
converting the DC power output
from the rechargeable energy
storage unit to the grid-like AC
power output,
Clause [0005] mentions that the hybrid generator
includes an inverter that converts the stored energy from
the batteries to AC power.
This is also shown in figure 6, bottom right part, showing
that the DC output from the batteries is connected to
to the inverter, which converts the DC input into an AC
output.
44
wherein the mobile hybrid
generator is configured such
that
1.6 1) the grid-like AC power output is
provided only from the
rechargeable energy storage unit
via the inverter unit, and
Paragraph [00029] describes that once the batteries are
charged, the engine may be shut off and the batteries
may operate for many hours without the user load:
"Once the batteries are charged, the engine may be shut
off and the batteries may operate
the user load for many hours without the generator
operating saving substantial fuel, reducing noise, and
reducing emissions."
Clearly, at least when the batteries are sufficiently
charged, the hybrid generator's output comes from the
batteries alone.
1.7 2) the output from the primary
energy source is only used to charge
the rechargeable energy storage
unit,
Paragraph [00029] further describes that excess energy is
stored in the batteries: "An embodiment may be ableto
operate a generator at it most efficient power
settingbecause of an on-board battery storage which may
allowexcess energy to be stored if the user demand is less
than the generator's
optimum operating regime."
1.8 both during normal mode operation,
having normal mode
powerrequirements, and during
peakpower operation, having
peakpower requirements,
Paragraph [00049] describes that the inverter can handle
loads between 300-400% of the generator's capability. It
is thus clear that the generator is configured for both
normal operation and high loads.
1.9 the mobile hybrid generator system
characterised in that the at least
first primary energy source is
dimensioned to the normal mode
power requirements, i.e. much
smaller than for the peak power
requirements
Paragraph [00049] describes that it is advantageous that
the generator (i.e. first primary energy source) is
dimensioned to the average load and not to the
maximum load: "Using an inverter that can surge to
300%-400% of generator rated load in order to start
large inductive loads provides
non obvious advantages. For example, the generator
need only be sized for the average load, not the peak
load, thereby saving considerable expense in initial
purchase cost, and considerable expense in reduced
operating costs."
It is thus clear that claim 1 of the Disputed Patent is not novel in light of US 791, and that the Disputed Patent is thus
invalid for lack of novelty.
45
It is noted that US 791 was disclosed by the examiner at the EPO in connection with the prosecution of the patent in suit.
The application was first disclosed in connection with the search report for the
priority application (Annex H) and later also mentioned in the international search report (Annex I) and in the
international provisional patentability assessment (Annex J). During the prosecution, US 791 is referred to as "D4".
However, in connection with the prosecution, it is important to note that Hybridgenerator in a letter dated 28
October 2021 (Appendix K), which was filed together with the filing of the Patent Application,
argued that US 791 does not deprive claim 1 of novelty, as US 791, in Hybridgenerator's opinion, does not show
features 1.6-1.8:
1) "the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via
the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy
storage unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and
during peak power operation, having peak power requirements,"
The examiner has not commented further on US 791 during the case processing, and it is therefore obvious to
conclude that the examiner has mistakenly applied Hybridgenerator's incorrect comment in the letter
comment in the letter of 28 October 2021 and on that basis assessed that claim 1 had novelty over US 791.
2.4 The inventive step of the patent in suit based on GB 2 493 631 A ("GB 631")
It is argued that if the court disagrees that the claims of the Contested Patent do not fulfil the novelty requirement, it
does not fulfil the requirement of inventive step and also for this reason, the Contested Patent cannot form the basis
for Hybridgenerator's request for preservation of evidence in this case.
However, this case is special in that the counterclaims in GB 928, US 791 and Hybrid Generator's own
products are not only similar to the solution in the Dispute Patent, but identical to the solution in the
the patent in suit. The prior art is even within the same technical field. Against this background, it is therefore irrelevant
and pointless to discuss whether the Dispute Patent has inventive step, as it is obvious that
The patent in suit is already invalid due to lack of novelty. However, it is argued - if the court does not agree with the
remarks on lack of novelty above - that the Dispute Patent at least cannot be upheld due to lack of inventive step, cf.
Article 56 EPC.
The relevant assessment in this connection is whether the technology described in the patent in suit differs
significantly from the technology known at the priority date of the patent in suit. This assessment is based on whether
the technology was obvious to a skilled person. In the assessment of
46
inventive step is based on the so-called problem and solution approach. The PSA analysis has three main steps:
a) determining the "closest prior art",
b) defining the "objective technical problem" to be solved, and
c) assessing whether the claimed invention, based on the closest prior art and the objective
technical problem, is obvious to the skilled person.
The assessment of inventive step - including the PSA analysis to the extent that it is applicable in relation to
the objections raised - is discussed below.
When selecting the closest prior art after the PSA analysis, the first consideration is that the closest prior art must have a
similar purpose or function as the invention or at least
belong to the same technical field as the claimed invention.
All of the asserted prior art in this case - including Hybridgenerator's own previous products - are hybrid generators
that exhibit the same function as claim 1 of the patent in suit. Therefore, it would be reasonable to take all of the
asserted prior art as the closest prior art.
The determination of the objective technical problem presupposes that the technical features of the invention that
are different from what appears in the prior art can be identified. However, this is not really possible in relation to the
prior art in this case, as the prior art is not 'missing anything' in relation to the solution in the patent in suit, and the
prior art is thus identical to the patent in suit. Therefore, it is not possible to meaningfully use the counterclaims in
connection with a PSA analysis. Thus, there is no question of either changes or improvements to the product that the
skilled person must use in connection with the solution of the objective technical problem.
It is argued that it is undoubtedly obvious for the skilled person to find the solution in an identical hybrid generator. Thus,
the skilled person does not even need to find inspiration from other fields.
At the time of grant of the Contested Patent, the EPO examiner also assessed that the Contested Patent's
claim 1 was new compared to GB 631 (presented as Appendix N), which during prosecution is referred to as "D1",
based on the characterising part of claim 1 of the patent in suit:
"the mobile hybrid generator system characterised in that the at least first primary energy source is dimensioned to the
normal mode power requirements, i.e. much smaller than for the peak power requirements."
During the grant procedure, the examiner has on several occasions expressed that GB 631 showed all additional features of
claim 1.
additional features of claim 1. Among other things in the preliminary international patentability assessment (Appendix J),
and also in email correspondence with Hybrid Generator's patent agent on 31 May 2024 (presented as
47
Appendix O) and 3 June 2024 (submitted as Appendix P). It is not clear from the case history what the
examiner based his decision to recognise the inventive step of the issued claim 1 on.
However, if we assume that GB 631 is the closest prior art and that it differs from the invention by the absence of the
above features, then the objective technical problem can be described as how to create a more sustainable and
efficient generator system.
GB 631 mentions that "the system 10, may be operated in several modes of operation", see paragraph [0011], and
paragraph [0015] states that "the ESS is used to provide power during load spikes" (ESS is in GB 631 an
abbreviation for "energy storage system" and thus the battery, see section [0010]). This indicates to the expert that
the motor does not need to be able to supply all necessary power at peak load.
In Appendix C1 (at 11:20-11:35), which deals with a hybrid generator, it is specifically mentioned that, in order to save
weight, the engine should be dimensioned so that it can only cover the nominal load. US 791 (as described above)
mentions in paragraph [0040] that costs can be saved in both production and use by using an engine that is only sized
for the average load
rather than maximum load.
It is thus clear that the skilled person seeking to solve the objective technical problem of creating a more sustainable
and efficient generator system based on GB 631 will be inspired by either the benefit of reduced weight, as mentioned
in Appendix C1, and/or the cost savings, as mentioned in US 791, to size the engine for the average load rather than
the maximum load, and thus propose a solution that is within the scope of claim 1 of the Contested Patent.
It is therefore clear that claim 1 of the Disputed Patent also lacks inventive step at least on the basis of GB 631.
All of the prior art presented in this case - including Hybridgenerator's own previous products - are hybrid generators
that exhibit the same function as claim 1 of the Contested Patent. Therefore, it would be reasonable to take all of the
asserted prior art as the closest prior art.
The determination of the objective technical problem presupposes that the technical features of the invention that
are different from what appears in the prior art can be identified. However, this is not really possible in relation to the
prior art in this case, as the prior art is not 'missing anything' in relation to the solution in the patent in suit, and the
prior art is thus identical to the patent in suit. Therefore, it is not possible to meaningfully use the counterclaims in
connection with a PSA analysis. Thus, there is no question of either changes or improvements to the product that the
skilled person must use in connection with the solution of the objective technical problem.
It is argued that it is undoubtedly obvious for the skilled person to find the solution in an identical hybrid generator. Thus,
the skilled person does not even need to find inspiration from other fields.
48
When the patent in suit was granted, the examiner at the EPO also assessed that the patent in suit's
Claim 1 was new compared to GB 631 (presented as Appendix N), which during prosecution was referred to as "D1",
based on the characterising part of claim 1 of the patent in suit:
"the mobile hybrid generator system characterised in that the at least first primary energy
source is dimensioned to the normal mode power requirements, i.e. much smaller than for the
peak power requirements."
During the grant procedure, the examiner has on several occasions expressed that GB 631 showed all additional features of
claim 1.
additional features of claim 1. Among other things in the preliminary international patentability assessment
(Appendix J), and also in email correspondence with Hybrid Generator's patent agent on 31 May 2024 (presented as
Appendix O) and 3 June 2024 (presented as Appendix P). It is not clear from the case history what
the examiner has used as a basis for recognising the inventive step of the issued claim 1.
However, if we assume that GB 631 is the closest prior art and that it differs from the invention by the absence of the
above features, then the objective technical problem can be described as how to create a more sustainable and
efficient generator system.
GB 631 mentions that "the system 10, may be operated in several modes of operation", see paragraph [0011], and
paragraph [0015] states that "the ESS is used to provide power during load spikes" (ESS is in GB 631 an
abbreviation for "energy storage system" and thus the battery, see section [0010]). This indicates to the expert that
the motor does not need to be able to supply all the necessary power at peak load.
In Appendix C1 (at 11:20-11:35), which deals with a hybrid generator, it is specifically mentioned that, in order to save
weight, the engine should be dimensioned so that it can only cover the nominal load. US 791 (as described above)
mentions in paragraph [0040] that costs can be saved in both production and use by using an engine that is only sized
for the average load
rather than maximum load.
It is thus clear that the skilled person seeking to solve the objective technical problem of creating a more sustainable
and efficient generator system based on GB 631 will be inspired by either the benefit of reduced weight, as mentioned
in Appendix C1, and/or the cost savings, as mentioned in US 791, to size the engine for the average load rather than
the maximum load, and thus propose a solution that is within the scope of claim 1 of the Contested Patent.
It is therefore clear that claim 1 of the patent in suit also lacks inventive step based on GB 631.
2.5 Hybrid generator cannot invoke a subsidiary claim set
In the pleading of 22 October 2024, Hybridgenerator submits that the Contested Patent is at least valid based on a
combination of claim 1, claim 14 and part of claim 15 and that the order must be amended accordingly.
49
It is noted that the proof required for the validity of the Contested Patent in interlocutory proceedings is
remedies do not concern the question of whether the Dispute Patent could have been issued in an amended form,
but whether the Dispute Patent is valid in its current version. It is therefore not possible to invoke an amended
version of the Contested Patent in the context of an evidence protection case. Instead, the validity of the patent in
suit must be considered as issued - here as issued by the EPO. This follows directly from the practice of the UPC.
It should also be noted that the proposed amended claim is not valid either, as these features can also be found in the
counterclaims mentioned above.
2.6 Summary of invalidity (lack of novelty and inventive step)
As stated above, claim 1 of the patent in suit does not fulfil the requirements of novelty according to
Articles 52(1) and 54(2) EPC or the requirements of inventive step according to Article 56 EPC. The patent
in suit can
therefore cannot be considered valid and cannot form the basis for an order to preserve evidence. Alternatively, it
means that the presumption of validity is at least weakened to such an extent that the patent in suit cannot form
the basis for the request for preservation of evidence.
In its statement of case, Hybridgenerator states that the features in subclaim 5 (fuel tank and combustion engine),
subclaim 6 (LTO battery), subclaim 7 (solar cells) and subclaim 13 (the hybrid system is mounted on a trailer) are also
assumed to be exhibited by the Contested Products. Hybrid Generator relies solely on claim 1 in support of its request,
and it is therefore merely noted that these features are also known from
Hybridgenerator's own products already prior to the priority date (see Annexes A-D) as well as from several of the
defence submissions, e.g. Annex F and Annex L.
3 Either there is no infringement or the Contested Patent is invalid
Based on the above, it is claimed that the Disputed Products do not constitute an infringement of
Dispute Patent, especially in light of the narrowing of the Dispute Patent and the technical composition and
functioning of the Dispute Products.
If the court nevertheless reaches the conclusion that the Disputed Products exhibit all claim elements of claim 1 of the
claim 1 of the Dispute Patent, the consequence is that the Dispute Patent is invalid. This is because Hybridgenerator's
argumentation regarding the alleged infringement is based on an interpretation of claim 1, which has already
published by Hybridgenerator itself prior to the priority date, see Appendices A-D, and described in the prior art, see
Appendices F and G.
It is therefore not possible for the Contested Patent to be valid and at the same time cover a hybrid generator that is
identical to or not significantly different from the hybrid generators described in the
cited patent applications described above and presented as Appendix F and Appendix L or from Hybrid Generator's
own hybrid generators as shown in Appendix A-D.
50
Either the Disputed Products therefore do not infringe the Disputed Patent and alternatively - if the court does not
follow this argument - it is clear that the Disputed Patent is invalid due to lack of novelty..."
Rekvisiti's pleading of 18 November 2024:
"... SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF CASE AND PLEAS
1 The contested products do not infringe claim 1 of the Contested Patent
As already explained in the request for reconsideration of the order to preserve evidence and in the pleading of 29
October 2024, the Disputed Products do not exhibit features 1.6-1.8 of claim 1 of the Disputed Patent. The coupling
between the motor/DC generator, battery element and inverter is, however, as described in detail in the pleading of
29 October 2024, illustrated in Appendix T and documented with the written witness statement from
in Appendix U.
In its pleading of 8 November 2024 (page 4), Hybridgenerator writes
"It is not disputed by the Petitioner that the following solution [as shown in Appendix T] described in the
Petitioner's pleading differs from the patent in suit".
Annexes Q and R also show photos of the connection between the DC generator, batteries and inverter in the Contested
Products. Appendix S shows 3D visualisations of the connections in the Combat Products.
Appendices Q and R show an MPU3000 from HGSystem. To date, only one single MPU has been developed and assembled
example - a prototype - of an MPU3000, and that example was completed in the spring of 2024, i.e. prior to the date
the evidence was secured. It can therefore be denied that further developments of the Strid products (MPU1000,
MPU2000 and/or MPU3000) have taken place after the evidence was secured.
Hybrid Generator's conjecture (based on the information about increased peak load in Appendices 64 and 64)
that Appendices Q and R show a completely newly developed MPU3000, which is not the subject of the case,
is therefore not
correct. The increased peak load is instead achieved by configuring the product with, for example, a larger battery or
by increasing the number of inverter modules. However, it should be noted that no product has yet been produced
with the increased peak load described in appendices 64 and 65. The use of the word 'newly developed' in Appendix
65 refers to the fact that the MPU3000 is HGSystems' most recently developed product and that the product will be
fully developed in 2024
(but prior to the evidentiary hearing), and is now ready for production.
Attached as Exhibit V is a written witness statement from who has assisted HGSystem
with the development of the Combat Products. confirms that the connection between
DC generator, batteries and inverter in the Combat Products is as illustrated in Appendix T and that all Combat Products
(MPU1000, MPU2000 and MPU3000) operate according to the same principle and with
51
same electrical connection from the motor/DC generator via two DC busbars to both battery and inverter. It is further
confirmed in the witness statement from that the example of MPU3000 shown in Appendix Q and R
was assembled in April and May 2024.
In its pleading of 8 November 2024, Hybridgenerator claims that the witness statement from is not
supported by evidence. This is not correct. Firstly, the written witness statement itself constitutes just such evidence.
Second, Hybridgenerator ignores the existence of Exhibits Q and R, which precisely
documents the connection between DC generator, batteries and inverter in an MPU3000 (which, according to the written
witness statements from in Appendix U and in Appendix V
written witness statements from in appendix U and in appendix V is constructed and
functions in the same way as the MPU1000 and MPU2000). Appendix S also contains 3D visualisations of the connections
in the
Strid products that also document the connection between the DC generator, batteries and inverter.
2 Hybrid Generator's conjecture about a less efficient solution
Hybridgenerator's entire case is based on a postulate that a solution other than the one described in claim 1 of the
Combat Patent would be less efficient than the Combat Patent's solution (and therefore "must"
The disputed products would have utilised the solution of the disputed patent). However, Hybridgenerator has not
specified why it should be the case that this solution is "more efficient" than other solutions.
On the contrary, the best efficiency is achieved by letting the inverter use the power directly from the
motor/DC generator, so that energy is not unnecessarily wasted by first having to be stored in the
batteries.
The written witness statement submitted by Hybridgenerator as Appendix 66, which was prepared by
Hybridgenerator, does not describe why Hybridgenerator and
is of the opinion that the solution used by HGSystem 'cannot be operated in the most efficient mode in the same
way', and why, if so, it would seem that HGSystem - despite the description and documentation of the solution used in the
pleadings, annexes and the written witness statements from
and - still uses the solution described in the Disputed Patent.
3 witness statement (appendix 66)
accuses HGSystem in its witness statement of having manufactured the hybrid generator in appendices Q
and R 'for the occasion'. The reason is to be found in analysis of the season shown in the images.
concludes that the images on pages 1, 6 and 7 were taken in autumn (after the evidence was secured), as the leaves of
the trees have fallen off and the remaining leaves are orange, and that the hedge is missing leaves and the remaining
leaves are orange. The photo on page 8 concludes was taken in spring or summer, which in 's
opinion is not
that the picture on page 8 shows a later stage in the assembly of the Combat Product. This conclusion is based on
misunderstanding from
The images on pages 1, 6 and 7 were not taken in autumn, but in the spring of 2024 before the beech has sprouted.
It is true that the photo on page 8 was taken later - in May 2024 - and thus correctly shows a later step in the
assembly, which was made after the beech has sprouted.
52
states (allegedly because the machine has been moved) that there is no reason to believe that
it is the same hybrid generator shown on page 8 and page 9 of Annex Q. However, does not
explain why 'there is no reason to believe that it is the same machine as shown on page 8.
Reference is made to the written witness statement in Appendix V from which documents that (i) only
one copy of the MPU3000 was manufactured and (ii) the assembly of the prototype (as shown in Appendix Q)
commenced in April 2024 and was fully assembled in May 2024.
It is thus clear that the Contested Products do not exhibit all of the features of claim 1 of the Contested Patent, and it is
also clear that Hybrid Generator's reasons (including that the MPU3000 model shown in appendices Q and R is a new
development made after the evidence was secured) do not document that this is
the case. On the contrary. The attempt to cast doubt on the design of the Combat Products is disproved by the
written witness statements from in Appendix U and in Appendix V. They both state that all
the Conflicting Products operate according to the same principle and with the same electrical connection from motor/DC
generator via two DC busbars to both battery and inverter. This corresponds to the illustration in Appendix T, which
Hybrid Generator in the pleading of 8 November 2024 confirms does not constitute an infringement of
the patent in suit..."
Pleading of 22 October 2024 from the petitioner:
"...
3. The applicant's comments on the points in the respondent's request for reconsideration
The Respondent's request for reconsideration of the Court's order gives rise to the following
observations:
3.1. Activities related to the Norwegian company HGSystem AS (point 1.1 of the request for
reconsideration)
The petitioner does not dispute that the activities of the Norwegian company HGSystem AS, which take place in
Norway, are not covered by the case.
Since it is undisputed that the production of the combat products takes place in Denmark,
the Respondent's comments in section 1.1 of the Request for Reconsideration appear to be irrelevant to the decision
on whether the order should be amended or cancelled.
The petitioner agrees that any information about activities in the secured material, which is only relevant to the
related to HGSystem AS' activities in Norway should not be included in the evidence report.
3.2. Alleged attempt to discredit (point 1.2 in the request for reconsideration)
The Respondent's assertion that "several of the appendices have the sole purpose of drawing an incorrect picture
of/discrediting is disputed.
53
Exhibit 37 is submitted to draw the Court's attention to the fact that is in possession of a
shredder, which in its own words considers to be its "number one favourite office machine", and that
there was thus a real risk that relevant evidence would be deleted if the applicant were to have prior notice of the
execution of the preservation order.
The name of the person behind the comment "delete all traces" to the post has been anonymised by
the petitioner because it is irrelevant to the case who the person is. According to the petitioner, there is no evidence
that this anonymisation, as claimed by the petitioner, has been done to give the false impression that "it should be
itself" who has commented on its own posting.
3.3. On the standard of proof for patent infringement (points 1.3 and 5 of the request for reconsideration)
The condition for the realisation of evidence protection is that "reasonably available evidence" is presented
to support that a patent has been infringed or will be infringed, cf. Article 60(1) of the UPC Agreement.
The concept of "reasonably available evidence" is repeated in several legal acts on the protection and enforcement of
intellectual property rights, including Article 43(1) of the TRIPS Agreement and Directive 2004/48/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights
("Enforcement Directive") Article 7(1).
Since a main purpose of the preservation of evidence is to ensure proof of the existence of a patent infringement, it
cannot be made a condition that the infringement is proved. According to UPC case law, circumstantial evidence may
constitute sufficient proof that the condition is met.
By ORD_9825/2024 of 1 March 2024 in case UPC_CFI_397/2023, the French local division in Paris of the Court of First
Instance of the Unified Patent Court has ruled in a case similar to the present case concerning the examination of a
request for reconsideration of an order authorising the implementation of evidence preservation (Annex 60).
In the case, the Court held that the requirement in Article 60(1) of the UPC Agreement to provide "reasonably available
evidence" must be interpreted as meaning that "the application should not be based on simple assumptions or allegations
that are not supported by sufficient evidence, the aim being to gather all the
means to prove the alleged infringement." [...] "In support of its application, particularly in the context of ex parte
proceedings, the applicant has the obligation to present the facts fairly, without distorting their integrity."
In the above case, the evidence consisted of one brochure showing the contested product and a printout from a
publicly available website that also showed the contested product. The Court found that this material together
constituted reasonably accessible evidence for the purpose of securing evidence.
The reasonably available evidence in this case is summarised in the petitioner's claim matrix in section 2.2.
2.2. in the request for preservation of evidence.
The Court has already assessed that the petitioner's evidence and claim matrix constitute such reasonably available
evidence to support that the patent in suit is infringed or will be infringed. It is then up to the petitioner to refute the
probable infringement.
54
In section 1.3 of its request for reconsideration, the petitioner argues that the petitioner's evidence of infringement is
insufficient from an overall perspective, without, however, presenting any evidence that the petitioner's infringement
assessment is incorrect. It is therefore argued that the content of section 1.3 cannot constitute a basis for either
cancellation or amendment of the order
In section 5, the Respondent specifies why, in the Respondent's opinion, the infringing products do not constitute an
infringement of the patent in suit. It is stated here that the contested products do not fulfil the following requirements
in the patent in suit:
1) "the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter
unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power
operation, having peak power requirements,"
The Appellant submits that the contending products differ from the claimed features in that they utilise an internal
combustion engine to drive a direct current (DC) generator and that the DC current generated is used by the inverter
to provide an AC output when the hybrid generator is loaded and to charge the batteries when the load is less than
the output of the DC generator.
If the combat products actually work as claimed, it would have been a simple task for the proponent to document this.
Based on the requisitioner's own marketing, it must be presumed that the requisitioner, as alleged, uses a solution
that is technically inefficient compared to the solution that helped develop at the requisitioner.
One of the main purposes of the preservation of evidence is precisely to obtain evidence of the existence of
infringement. Therefore, it must be to the detriment of the respondent in terms of evidence that they have not
provided evidence of the correctness of the technical description that can disprove the probable infringement of the
patent in suit.
This view is also supported by the ruling in case ORD_9825/2024.
argued that the infringing product should not infringe the patent in suit, as the infringing product should not
"reproduce all the features of claim 1" in the patent in suit. The Court stated: "However, it is a matter of preserving
evidence at an early stage of the proceedings. The Court rightly considered that the applicant had provided sufficient
available reasonable evidence of the alleged infringement against [petitioner] by marketing the [stridsproduktet], a
very similar product to the [originalprodukt], [rekvisentens] product which embodies the patent at issue."
3.4. On the validity of the patent in suit (points 3 and 4 of the request for re-examination)
3.4.1. The presumption of validity of the patent in suit (point 3 of the request for re-examination)
The Respondent's argument that there is no presumption in favour of the validity of the patent in suit is disputed.
Especially in cases of provisional measures such as preservation of evidence and preliminary injunctions, there is a
strong presumption in favour of the validity of a granted patent.
This is confirmed by the following decisions of the Court of Justice:
55
1. ORD_500982/2023 of 14 June 2023, handed down by the Italian Local Division of Milan of the Court of
First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (English translation via the Deepl tool attached as Annex 61).
2. ORD_587064/2023 of 14 November 2023, issued by the French local division in Paris of the
Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Annex 62).
3. ORD_9825/2024 of 1 March 2024, presented as Annex 60
In connection with the request for reconsideration of the order authorising the execution of evidence preservation,
which was the subject of ORD_9825/2024, the petitioner in the case challenged the patent in suit and claimed that
the patent in suit lacked novelty and inventive step.
The Court found in the case that since the patent in suit was "in force and there are no pending proceedings
challenging its validity", the patent in suit should be considered valid, and the Court found that there was "no reason
for the Court to examine further the validity of the patent in question at this stage of the proceedings".
Therefore, it is argued that neither the UPC Agreement nor the Rules of Procedure allow the Court to consider the
question of the validity of a patent in suit, including the scope of the validity of the patent in suit, in the course of
proceedings for the preservation of evidence.
The presumption of validity of a patent in suit, especially in cases concerning provisional measures, also follows from
Danish case law, including Østre Landsret's decision of 15 December 2023 in the joined cases BS-5667/2023-OLR
(Biogen International GmbH and Biogen Denmark A/S v Viatris ApS), BS-7310/2023-OLR (Sandoz A/S v Biogen
International GmbH and Biogen Denmark A/S and BS-27713/2023-OLR (Sandoz A/S v Biogen International GmbH and
Biogen Denmark A/S).
It is therefore submitted that since the patent in suit is in force and no oppositions have been filed against the patent
in suit, the Court must assume that the patent in suit is valid as issued.
Alternatively, it is argued that there is a presumption that the patent in suit will at least be maintained in limited
form, cf. section 3.4.2 below.
3.4.2. The submitted novelties (sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the request for re-examination)
The applicant has cited an earlier version of the applicant's hybrid generator, which differs from the patented hybrid
generator. The previous version has two working options, which consist of respectively:
- An inverter mode, where power is drawn via the inverter and this power is gridlike; and
- A boost mode, where the motor works in series with the inverter for peak loads. In this way, both the
the motor and inverter contribute directly to the output during peak loads.
This is supported by B1-B3, which describes these two modes, and C1-C2, where explains (10:20-
10:40): "So, the other part we have, if I'm listing the benefits and all, it's very clean power because we run the inverter
power 100%, like an ups. The reason we have tested both, we can run the power through the inverter and do a
power boost."
56
In other words, explains that the machine has an inverter mode and a boost mode.
then explains that there are problems with boost mode, such as not getting "grid-like" power. Then
explains the advantages of inverter mode over boost mode and thus the optimal use of the presented
hybrid generator.
said problem with boost mode is precisely what patent EP4238202B1 solves with the following
technical features:
"wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter
unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power
operation, having peak power requirements,"
The previous version of the applicant's hybrid generator has the described features 1) and 2) during "normal mode
operation" but not during "peak power operation", which corresponds to the mentioned "boost mode".
In the requirements matrix on page 8, second last row, the client writes "It is clear from Appendix C1 that the above
applies both at peak power and nominal load. Peak power is, at 7:30-7:40, mentioned to be around 180 kW for a few
seconds, while the nominal load, at 11:20-11:35, is mentioned to be significantly lower, and that the motor should only
be large enough to handle the nominal load. These therefore correspond to peak power operation and normal mode
operation respectively."
This is not correct, and the requester forgets that both 1) and 2) must be present for both peak power operation and
normal mode operation.
At 7:30-7:40 it is described that peak power is 180 kW, but it is not mentioned which devices contribute to peak
power. In light of the entire presentation, it is clear that this is boost mode with both motor and
inverter power.
11:20-11:35 does not describe that the rated load is significantly lower than peak power.
states: "we don't want a generator that is big enough for the total load". There is nothing in the presentation to
support that the total load is the peak load described in the patent in suit.
Furthermore, in 11:20-11:35 in the presentation describes another embodiment of a hybrid generator
where the batteries are a buffer for the engine: "the secondary problem is the weight is a problem we don't want a
generator that is big enough for the total load or even half we need maybe one that is one third for only to cover the
nominal load over time the rest the battery is the buffer.".
In the quote, describes that the batteries are a buffer for the engine power, i.e. the energy from the
batteries is only used when the load reaches above nominal load - this is completely opposite to the subject matter of
the patent in suit, which describes "the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable
energy storage unit".
57
In summary, it follows from the above that claim 1 of the patent in suit differs from C1 in that C1 does not describe the
following features:
wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter
unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak power
operation, having peak power requirements,
the mobile hybrid generator system characterised in that the at least first primary energy source is dimensioned
to the normal mode power requirements, i.e. much smaller than for the peak power requirements."
Thus, the patent in suit is new compared to C1-C2, even if combined with B1-B3.
It is noted that the petitioner has only cited A1-A2 and D1 without using them in an attack on the claims of the patent
in suit. For the sake of good order, it is submitted that claim 1 of the patent in suit prima facie differs at least from A1-
A2 and D1 by the above technical features.
Therefore, none of the cited documents A1-D1 are anticipating patentability according to Art. 52 EPC. Subsidiary set
of claims
If, despite the above, the Court finds that there was a disclosure or combination of disclosures anticipating the
patentability of claim 1, MPU 1000, MPU 2000, MPU 3000 as stated in the request for evidence will still infringe several of
the dependent claims.
A combination of claim 1, claim 14 and part of claim 15 describes that the first primary energy source comprises a DC
voltage generator for generating direct current, wherein this DC voltage generator is driven by an internal combustion
engine and charges the batteries. Reference is made to the alternative claim set with amendment markings, which is
presented as Appendix 63.
None of the patent specifications cited during the European proceedings or the counterclaims submitted by the
respondent describe a hybrid generator with an internal combustion engine driving a DC voltage generator to produce
direct current only for charging batteries.
In C1, 14:25-14:35, explains that the described solution is not bound to 50 Hz or 60 Hz: "Out of that,
we are not bound to the 50hz or 60hz on the engine, meaning 1500 RPM is not often the best choice for a motor to run
on."
It is thus clear from C1 that the solution described includes an alternator that generates AC power.
Thus, the subsidiary claim set further differs from C1-C2 by including the following feature:
58
"wherein the at least first primary energy source comprises at least one DC voltage generator,
such that the output from the first primary energy source is DC power, and wherein the DC
voltage generator is driven by a combustion engine."
In continuation hereof, it is submitted that in the event that the Court in these proceedings, despite what has been
stated in section 3.4.1, finds it established that claim 1 of the patent in suit as issued cannot be upheld, the order to
preserve evidence must be upheld with the necessary amendments, because it is presumed that the patent will
continue to be valid in the limited form.
As also stated in the request for re-examination, the contested products have DC motors. Thus, the contested products
will infringe the subsidiary claim set, cf. the following claim matrix:
Subsidiary claim 1 The MPU 1000/2000/3000 combat products Traction
present
?
A mobile hybrid
generator system
for providing grid-
like AC power
output to a load at
off-grid locations,
References 1* and 3* show a hybrid generator system pulled by a car. Reference
2* mentions that the MPU 1000 is "Super Mobile, lifting points for crane,
fork channels, fork channels, or trailer tow with B licence". Reference 2
mentions "24 kVA AC out" which is a grid-like AC output.A grid-like AC output is
technically necessary for the hybrid generator system to power all common
electrical devices, as electrical devices are designed for specific AC outputs.
Yes
the hybrid
generator system
comprising a
housing
accommodating:
Reference 2 refers to "the design follows the MPU 2000/3000 family".
Reference 4* shows in the first row of the table that each
MPU has a trailer and a housing as shown in the picture and "Unit size".
Yes
- a
rechargeableelectri
cal energystorage
unit, such as
abattery, configured
toprovide a DC
poweroutput
Reference 2 mentions a 24 kWh LTO battery; LTO batteries are specifically
mentioned several times in EP4238202, see [0026], [0031], [0049] and
claim 6 (lithium-titanate battery unit)].
Claims.
- at least a first
primaryenergy source,
suchas a
combustionengine,
Reference 2 mentions 380 L diesel tank. Yes
59
for chargingthe
rechargeableenerg y
storage unit, and
It also mentions the "compact Stage V" engine from Cat[erpillar]. Cat is a well-known
manufacturer of diesel engines. See the link below for an example of a
Stage V diesel engine from CAT:
https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/powersystems/industrial/in dustrial-diesel-
power-units/118940.html
(Appendix 59).
- an inverter unit
configured for
converting the
DCpower output
from
therechargeable
energystorage unit
to the gridlike AC
power output,
Reference 1 - mentions a 144 kVA inverter nominal output and 215 kW peak
performance.
Reference 4 states that the MPU 3000 has a nominal kVA of 144 kVA and a peak
performance of 216 kW. Thus, reference 1 shows an MPU 3000.
Reference 2 is MPU 1000 and the mentioned values 24 kVA AC out and 45 kW
match the table in reference 4
Yes
wherein the mobile
hybrid generator is
configured such
that
1) the grid-like
ACpower output
isprovided only from
therechargeable
energystorage unit
via theinverter unit,
and
according to reference 2, "24 kVA AC out" is provided, i.e. the MPU 1000
delivers 24 kVA AC. It is most likely that the grid-like AC power is only provided
by the battery and inverter, because an alternative where the diesel engine also
contributes to the grid-like AC power would require the diesel engine to
operate at a correct speed AND in phase with the inverter. This would not only
be a complicated solution, but it would also lower the efficiency of the diesel
engine
against the wishes of HGsystems.
Yes
2) the output from
the primary energy
source
s only used to
charge the
rechargeable
energy storage
unit,
Reference 2 mentions that the Stage V engine from Cat[erpillar] is responsible
for charging.
It is clear from the references that the hybrid system is
particularly efficient. It is only possible for a diesel engine to be efficient at
certain engine speeds. If the diesel engine (primary energy source) is used to
directly supply grid-like AC power, then a 4-cylinder diesel engine should
operate at 1500 rpm, but a typical diesel engine is not efficient there. See
EP4238202 - [0022], line 5-9: "the engine + generator is connected to the load,
50 Hz requires an engine speed of around 1500 RPM with a four pole
generator. But a typical diesel engine does not operate efficiently at 1500
RPM." Any other configuration will result in a less efficient mobile hybrid
generator.
Yes
60
The principle of the patent is developed by
EP4238202.
It is therefore highly likely that it has been adopted by new companies,
as the only way to improve
fuel efficiency is by ensuring that the engine operates at the most energy-efficient
rpm.
- both during
normalmode
operation, having
normal modepower
requirements, and
during peak
poweroperation,
having peakpower
requirements
It is clear from reference 4 row three that each MPU has a peak KW [Peak
power] and a Nom, kVA [Nominal], which correspond to peak power operation
and normal mode operation respectively.
Yes
the mobile hybrid
generator system
characterised in
that
the at least first
primary energy
source
is dimensioned to
the
normal mode power
requirements, i.e.
much smaller than
for
the peak power
requirements
According to reference 4, the MPU 1000 has a charging power of 12.5 kW and
the peak power is 45 kW. This means that the peak power is 3.6 times larger
than the charging power of 12.5 kW.
Yes
wherein the at least
first primary energy
source comprises at
least one DC voltage
generator, such that
the output from the
Reference 2 mentions 380 L diesel tank.
Reference 2 refers to the "compact Stage V" engine from Cat[erpillar]. Cat is
a well-known manufacturer of diesel engines. Appendix 44 shows an
exploded view of HGsystem's hybrid generator, showing a Caterpillar engine,
which can also be seen on CAT's website:
https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/powersystems/industrial/in dustrial-diesel-
power-units/118940.html
(Appendix 59)
Yes
61
wherein the DC
voltage generator is
driven by a
combustion engine.
Reference 2 mentions 380 L diesel tank.
It also mentions the "compact Stage V" engine from Cat[erpillar]. Cat is a well-known
manufacturer of diesel engines. See the link below for an example of a
stage V diesel engine from CAT:
See
https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/powersystems/industrial/in dustrial-diesel-
power-units/118940.html
(Exhibit 59)
Consequently, in the alternative to the claim that the Court's order on the preservation of evidence should be upheld,
it is submitted that the order should be amended in accordance with the above.
3.5. On the conditions for the preservation of evidence in relation to the individual subjects (point 7 of
the request for reconsideration)
3.5.1. HGSystem
In the request for reconsideration, it is not disputed that HGSystem is involved in at least some of the activities in
relation to the warheads that the applicant has described in its request for preservation of evidence. It is therefore not
disputed that the petitioner's request is properly directed against HGSystem if the Court finds that there is reasonably
available evidence to support that the infringing products constitute infringement of the patent in suit.
3.5.2. Infotech Concept, HGSystem Holding, Infotech Holding and
The other subjects are primarily involved in the case for the following reasons:
-
- Prior to submitting the request for evidence, the petitioner has no opportunity to familiarise itself with
which of the five subjects the PCs located at the address, for example, formally belong to.
-
- There is a reasonable assumption that Infotech Concept and are personally and directly
involved in the infringements in question.
It should be noted that this case only concerns the question of securing evidence of the subjects' possible involvement in
commercial activities in relation to the infringing products. If there is found
62
there is no such evidence in relation to one or more of the subjects, there is nothing to disclose to the petitioner.
If the involvement of Infotech Concept, HGSystem Holding, Infotech Holding and
unjustified, it will create a precedent that provides easy access for infringers of patent rights to circumvent the
possibility of implementing evidence preservation, which will undermine the purpose of the remedy in Article 60 of
the UPC Agreement. In the petitioner's clear view, this cannot be assumed to be the intention.
It is therefore submitted that the condition in Rule 192(2)(c) of the Rules of Procedure is fulfilled.
During the execution of the preservation of evidence, no information emerged that gave reason to assume that
material concerning the offences in question or PCs at the address belonged to HGSystem Holding or Infotech
Holding. The claimant therefore found no reason to include these companies as defendants in the subsequent main
proceedings. However, the fact that the two holding companies are not parties to the main proceedings does not
mean that the evidence protection proceedings against these companies have been wrongful.
3.6. Rekvisiti's claim for damages for unlawful interference (item 10 in the request for reconsideration)
The Respondent appears to argue that the mere fact that no main action has been brought against HGSystem Holding
or Infotech Holding implies that the Petitioner is liable for damages and must be ordered to pay legal costs to the
parties concerned. With reference to the above, it is disputed that this is the case.
Furthermore, it is claimed that it has not been documented by the requisitioner what loss and legal costs the two
holding companies may have independently incurred as a result of the securing of evidence..."
Pleading dated 8 November 2024 from the petitioner:
"...
2. About the infringement of the patent in suit
In its pleading, the petitioner states that the products in suit contain a common through DC bus, which has the
function of supplying direct current from the DC generator, which is driven by the combustion engine, to both battery
and inverter. Thus, according to the petitioner, there is no infringement of the patent in suit, which describes that the
internal combustion engine only supplies power to the batteries and that only the batteries supply power to the
internal combustion engine.
The Appellant seeks to document the existence of the described solution where the DC bus supplies DC power to both
battery and inverter by submitting Appendix Q (table with pictures and descriptions of a hybrid generator) and
Appendix R (pictures of the hybrid generator in question).
The appellant does not state whether the hybrid generator shown in Annexes Q and R is a model MPU1000,
MPU2000 or MPU3000.
63
Nor has it been explained when the example of the hybrid generator shown in Appendix Q and R was built, including
whether it was built before or after the date on which the evidence was obtained. It should be noted that further
development of the MPU1000, MPU2000 and/or MPU3000 models made after the evidence was obtained is not the
subject of this case.
Appendix 13 contains a printout from HGSystem's website on 10 August 2024 with data for the combat
products (models MPU1000, MPU2000 and MPU3000).
After the petitioner's pleading of 22 October 2024, made two additional LinkedIn posts dated 2
November 2024 (annex 64) and 4 November 2024 (annex 65).
In the posting in Appendix 64, describes a hybrid generator with 300 kW peak and 180 kVA nominal from
the batteries.
In the posting in Appendix 65, provides further details about the MPU 3000 with 300 kW peak, which
he describes as "completely newly developed", just as there are further details about the newly developed MPU3000
in the posting.
The stated peak power for the newly developed MPU3000 is thus well above the stated peak power of 216 kW for
the model of MPU3000 that is the subject of this case.
It must be assumed that this increased peak power is due to the fact that both the battery and the DC generator each
supply power directly to the inverter as described in the pleadings and appendices R, Q and S, as this technique makes
it possible to achieve an extra high power.
Appendices Q and R were prepared at the same time as the posting about the newly developed
model MPU3000. The petitioner is therefore of the opinion that the hybrid generator model in appendices Q and R is
this newly developed MPU3000, which is not the subject of the case.
The statement from in Annex U states the following, which however is not supported by any evidence:
- "The term "the Contested Products" is used in this declaration to refer collectively to the HGSystems hybrid
generators called MPU1000, MPU2000 and MPU3000, all three of which, with respect to the elements of
claim 1 of EP 4 238 202 B1 (the "Contested Patent") described below, are constructed and operate in the
same manner."
- "This DC coupling itself is, as indicated above, technically the same for all the Contested Products. In
addition, the Combat Products are not generally identical, for example, the same type of motor is not
used, which is why the control of the Combat Products is different."
As the requisitioner has built the Combat Products itself, it must, provided that the above is correct, be assumed that
the requisitioner is in possession of documentation for the above but has deliberately chosen not to present the
documentation
However, it is the petitioner's opinion that the above cannot include the disputed products that are the subject of the
case, as the motor in the described solution is coupled to the external load, which makes the solution less efficient and
thus not favourable in comparison with the solution described in the patent in suit.
64
This is also supported by paragraph [0011] of the description in the patent in suit, which states: "As long that the
generator
+ engine is connected directly to the output (possibly via an inverter), the power factor is an issue. When a power
requirement is created by the load, the generator must be able to react to it."
Attached as Appendix 66 is a written witness statement from
which confirms that an engine coupled directly to the load does not run as efficiently. The statement states that "In
the above solution, the internal combustion engine is coupled to the load and thus cannot be operated in the most
efficient mode in the same way.
The engine cannot avoid being affected by fluctuations in the load, whereby the engine will operate less efficiently. If the
batteries are close to being discharged, the batteries will not be able to compensate for the motor and the motor will
experience a very high load.
Therefore, the solution described by the proponent does not harmonise with the statements in the proponent's
marketing of the combat products that these have a significantly better fuel economy, cf. for example
statement in the article in Erhverv Fyn (Appendix 39), where it is stated that the hybrid generator
"becomes more autonomous, up to 20% better fuel economy than the previous one".
Furthermore, notes in the statement that the seasons in the pictures of the products of war in appendices
Q and R change from picture to picture, and that pictures 1 and 7 must have been taken in autumn, after the proofing
was completed. As the hybrid generator is not finished, it is concluded that the machine was constructed after the
evidence inspection.
It should also be noted that not all necessary features for the requisiti hybrid generator are shown in appendices Q
and R. On pages 6 and 9 of appendix Q, an inverter connection (red wires) to DC bus bar #2 is shown, but none of the
pictures show the connection between the batteries and DC bus bar #2. In addition, the appendices do not contain a
picture of an inverter connection (black wires) to DC bus bar #1.
Based on the above, the example of a hybrid generator shown in appendices Q and R appears unfinished and
manufactured for the purpose of showing a solution that does not infringe the patent in suit. However, there is no
evidence that the solution shown and described is technically identical to the products in dispute.
4. About the validity of the patent in suit
In its pleading, the Respondent argues that the patent in suit is not valid in relation to GB 2434928 A1 (Annex F), US
20140277791 A1 (Annex L), and GB2493631A (Annex N) and refers to the claim matrices for GB 2434928 A1 (Annex
G) and for US 20140277791 A1 (Annex L)
In this connection, the appellant refers to the fact that the three cited patent documents were all known to the EPO
and were thus included in the assessment of the patentability of the invention.
It is argued that in a case for interim measures such as the present case, the court does not have the possibility to set
aside the EPO's assessment of patentability against the three counterclaims and thus set aside the patent in suit as
invalid, and that the presumption of validity of the patent in suit must be upheld already on this basis.
Nevertheless, the applicant shall make the following comments on the pleadings submitted in defence:
65
GB 2434928 A1 ("GB 928"), Annex F
GB 928 (Annex F) was in the initial stages of the application process assessed by the EPO examiner to only be
relevant for claim 1 (X-counterpart) and claims 14/15 (Y-counterpart), see Annexes H and I.
Claim 1 was after the preliminary stages narrowed with several technical features, which led to the grant of the patent in
suit.
The description in GB 928, page 6, lines 2-6, mentions the embodiment shown in Figure 1, where the motor charges
the batteries and provides power to the inverter. Thus, the patent in suit differs from GB 928 at least in that GB
2434928 does not describe the feature "the mobile hybrid generator system characterised in that the at least first
primary energy source is dimensioned to the normal mode power requirements, i.e. much smaller than for the peak
power requirements."
US 20140277791 A1 (US 791), Appendix L
It is not disputed by the petitioner that the following solution described in the petition differs from the patent in suit:
According to the resikvitus, the above solution corresponds to the solution described in US 791, cf. the
following figure in the pleading of 29 October 2024, page 15, where blue and red colours are drawn:
66
The respondent states the following in the pleading:
"The Contested Products do not operate in the manner emphasised by the Plaintiff above.
In the Combat Products, power is supplied to the inverter both from the battery and
from the engine/generator [emphasis added].
The structure of the Contested Products is such that an internal combustion engine drives a direct
current (DC) generator. This generator supplies direct current to a common through DC bus. The
batteries and inverter are also connected to this DC bus. Therefore, there is a direct coupling
between the DC generator and the inverter. This means that the motor can simultaneously supply
power to both external loads via the inverter and to charge the batteries under normal and peak
load conditions."
Thus, according to the petitioner, claim 1 of the patent in suit differs from US 791 at least in that US 791 does not
contain the drive:
wherein the mobile hybrid generator is configured such that
1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the
inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the recharge-able energy
storage unit,
both during normal mode operation, having normal mode power requirements, and during peak
power operation, having peak power requirements
GB2493631A (GB 631), Annex N
GB 631 was assessed by the European case officer to be the closest prior art. The applicant agrees with this.
67
GB 631 was studied in detail by the EPO examiners, which is evident from Annexes O and P. The EPO examiners also
assessed that a skilled person would not combine GB 631 with either GB 928 or US 791 to arrive at a hybrid
generator as described in the patent in suit.
In the petition the following is stated: "It does not appear from the case history what the examiner has used as a basis
for recognising the inventive step of the issued claim 1."
However, this is not correct, as can be seen in the examiner's email dated 31 May 2024 (Appendix P, page 5):
The inventive step in the patent-in-suit is based on the fact that a smaller dimensioned motor is more efficient and that
the separation of the motor from the load enables a smaller dimensioning of the motor.
Furthermore, it would not be obvious to combine GB 631 with the video in appendix C1, as the solution in C1 includes
a boost mode where the generator is in series with the inverter. This is explained in the petitioner's previous pleading
dated 22 October 2024.
In paragraph 85 of the pleadings, reproduces the statement in Exhibit C1 as follows: "In Exhibit C1 (at
11:20-11:35), which relates to a hybrid generator, it is specifically mentioned that, in order to save weight, the engine
should be dimensioned so that it can only cover the nominal load. US 791 (as described above) mentions in paragraph
[0040] that costs can be saved in both production and use by using an engine sized only for the average load rather
than the maximum load."
The quote at 11:20-11:35 in Appendix C1 is as follows: "the secondary problem is the weight is a problem we don't
want a generator that is big enough for the total load or even half we need maybe one that is one third for only to
cover the nominal load over time the rest the battery is the buffer."
In the quote, describes that the batteries are a buffer for the engine power, i.e. the energy from the
batteries is only used when the load exceeds the nominal load - this is directly opposite to the solution in the patent in
suit, which describes "the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage
unit".
The quote at 11:20-11:35 thus harmonises with the second half of paragraph 85 of the pleadings,
which refers to US 791, because in US 791 motor power is fed to both the inverter and the batteries, so that the
batteries are a buffer for the motor.
The embodiment described by at 11:20-11:35 in C1 was therefore a solution similar to US 791
(although less energy efficient than the petitioner's later patented solution).
68
As the petitioner itself states that the solution described in Appendix Q differs from the patent in suit, the petitioner
must agree that the solution in US 791 differs from the patent in suit.
Based on the above, it can be concluded that if a skilled person combined GB 631 and C1, the resulting hybrid
generator would have a boost mode and the engine would supply power directly to the inverter, which falls outside
the solution described in the patent in suit.
4. The evidence report must be provided
As stated in the petitioner's email of 7 October 2024, the petitioner's request for reconsideration of the court's order
on preservation of evidence does not have suspensive effect in relation to the disclosure of the evidence report.
Rekvisiti's two pleadings in this case are without solid evidence that the infringing products technically function as
postulated by the Respondent, which only confirms the necessity that the evidence report must be provided
immediately. The Respondent's pleadings confirm that the presumption of infringement of the patent in suit can
only be confirmed or refuted through the disclosure of the evidence report.
It follows from the order of 21 September 2023 in case UPC-CFI-329/2023 from the local division of the Court of
Justice in Brussels that the evidence report must be provided as soon as it is ready. It cannot and should not be in the
respondent's favour that (under threat of coercive fines) has refused to hand over all codes to the IT
expert. As already mentioned, the IT expert must therefore submit a preliminary evidence report based on the
material at his disposal.
The fact that the ruling in case UPC-CFI-329/2023 concerned information about products that were publicly available
at a symposium was only relevant to the question of imposing a confidentiality obligation, but not to the question of
how quickly the evidence report should be provided. In the request for reconsideration of the court's order, the
petitioner has already requested that a duty of confidentiality be imposed on the persons who have learnt
confidential information, which the petitioner has not objected to.
The fact that the secured material may contain confidential information can therefore not justify that the evidence
report is not handed over immediately.
If the court does not grant the petitioner's request for immediate disclosure of the evidence report regarding all
material covered by the petitioner's claims, the petitioner claims in the alternative that the parts of the evidence
report concerning the technical construction of the infringing products must be provisionally disclosed so that the
existence of the infringement of the patent in suit can be clarified.
As stated in the petitioner's e-mail of 7 October 2024, the petitioner's request for reconsideration of the court's order
on preservation of evidence does not have suspensive effect in relation to the disclosure of the evidence report.
The Respondent's two pleadings in this case are without solid evidence that the products of war technically function
as postulated by the Respondent, which only confirms the necessity that the evidence preservation report must be
delivered immediately. The Respondent's pleadings confirm that only through disclosure of the evidence report can
the presumption of infringement of the patent in suit be confirmed or denied.
69
It follows from the order of 21 September 2023 in case UPC-CFI-329/2023 from the local division of the Court of
Justice in Brussels that the evidence report must be handed over as soon as it is ready. It cannot and should not be in
the respondent's favour that (under threat of coercive fines) has refused to hand over all codes to the
IT expert. As already mentioned, the IT expert must therefore submit a preliminary evidence report based on the
material at his disposal.
The fact that the ruling in case UPC-CFI-329/2023 concerned information about products that were publicly available
at a symposium was only relevant to the question of imposing a confidentiality obligation, but not to the question of
how quickly the evidence report should be provided. In the request for reconsideration of the court's order, the
petitioner has already requested that a duty of confidentiality be imposed on the persons who have learnt confidential
information, which the petitioner has not objected to.
The fact that the secured material may contain confidential information can therefore not justify that the evidence
report is not handed over immediately.
If the court does not grant the applicant's request for immediate disclosure of the evidence report concerning all
material covered by the applicant's claims, the applicant claims, in the alternative, that the parts of the evidence
report relating to the technical construction of the infringing products must be provisionally disclosed so that the
existence of the infringement of the patent in suit can be clarified..."
Reasons given by the Court
According to Article 60(1) of the UPC Agreement, the Court may, at the request of the applicant and even
before the commencement of the substantive proceedings, order that effective provisional measures be
taken immediately to preserve the relevant evidence relating to the alleged infringement, provided that
confidential information is protected. This requires that the requester has provided reasonably available
evidence to support that the patent has been infringed or will be infringed.
The rules on preservation of evidence are a tool that allows the right holder to clarify whether an
infringement has occurred or the extent of it. The rules on preservation of evidence do not require full
proof of infringement for them to be applicable, and according to the wording of Article 60(1), there is no
requirement that the applicant must make it probable or be able to establish with high certainty that an
infringement has occurred. Thus, there appears to be a relatively relaxed evidentiary requirement for
conducting an evidence protection case under the above provision.
According to Article 42 of the UPC Agreement on proportionality and justice, the Court must treat cases in
accordance with their importance and complexity.
Thus, under Article 60(1), a decision on the preservation of evidence will have to comply with the general
requirement of proportionality resulting from Article 42 of the UPC Agreement.
70
In its order of 26 August 2024, the Court found that the petitioner had, on the basis of the available evidence,
presented reasonably available evidence to support that European patent no. 4 238 202 B1 (the patent in
suit) is or will be infringed in Denmark on the premises,
In this assessment, the Court particularly emphasised that there was a well-founded presumption that the
contested products from the requisition (MPU 1000/2000/3000) must be assumed to contain all technical
features in independent claim 1 of the patent, just as it must be assumed that the contested products contain
features in subclaims 5, 6, 7 and 13.
The Court found that the examples of posts on the social media Facebook and LinkedIn from
, which had been reproduced by the petitioner, further supported the presumption that
infringement is taking place or will take place. There was thus a well-founded presumption that
infringements have taken place or would take place at the address in question.
The Respondent has requested that the Court review its order pursuant to Rule 197(3) of the Rules of
Procedure.
Validity of the patent in suit
The Respondent submits that the conditions for preservation of evidence are not fulfilled as the patent in
suit is invalid due to lack of novelty and lack of inventive step.
In this connection, Rekvisiti has referred to the fact that the patent in suit, cf. Article 52(1) and Article 54(2)
of the European Patent Convention, lacks novelty in relation to patent applications filed prior to the priority
date of the patent in suit on 28 October 2020. These are US 2014/0277791 A1 (Annex L) and GB 2 434 928
A1 (Annex F).
In addition, the applicant has claimed that the patent lacks inventive step, cf. Article 56 of the European Patent
Convention, in relation to GB 2 493 631 A (Annex N).
The Court notes that it appears from the case information that the above 3
patent documents should all have been included in the proceedings before the EPO when assessing whether
the conditions for the grant of the patent in suit were met.
There are currently no pending opposition proceedings regarding the validity of the patent in suit. Thus,
there is a clear presumption in favour of the validity of the patent in suit as it has been granted.
The Court therefore finds that, based on the possible evidence presented by the respondent during these
preliminary proceedings for the preservation of evidence, there is not a necessary basis for concluding that
the patent in suit must be considered invalid.
71
Infringement of the patent in suit
The Court finds that the distinguishing feature of the patent in suit is that the energy source - i.e.
diesel engine - is configured for normal operating load requirements and thus must run less than what is
known from prior art.
The infringing products contain this distinguishing feature.
In relation to infringement, the question is whether the features of the patent in suit, which consist of the
motor only supplying power to the battery and only the battery supplying power to the load via the
inverter, are present in the products in suit.
It is not disputed by the petitioner that if the contending products actually technically function in the manner
now described in the pleadings from the petitioner and use is made of two bus bars, one of which supplies
power from the motor/generator to the inverter without the battery,
there is no patent infringement.
It must thus be considered recognised by the petitioner that the petitioner does not at the present time
basis has demonstrated that in the infringing products it is only the battery that supplies power via the
inverter. Thus, on the present basis, the claimant has not documented infringement.
The Respondent has stated that on the present basis, it must be considered more likely that the infringing
products do not infringe the patent in suit than that the opposite should be the case.
The petitioner has argued that the preservation of evidence was requested precisely in order to
obtain unavailable evidence in order to be able to subsequently document this infringement.
In this connection, the claimant has further argued that the description of the warfare products from the
requisitioner is not related to the stated energy efficiency of the warfare products, and that the
requisitioner has not presented the documentation that the requisitioner must be deemed to be in
possession of.
In this connection, the applicant further claims that the war products must be considered to have been
remodelled after the initiation of the evidence protection proceedings.
In their witness statements, and have confirmed the requisitioner's
description of the combat products. It follows from the witness statement from that no
fundamental mechanical development and rebuilding has taken place on the MPU3000 machine since 30
August 2024.
72
On the present basis, the Court does not find, notwithstanding the witness statements from
and - also with reference to the peculiar course of events described by the bailiff's court during
the evidence-protection proceedings at the respondent's address on 30 August 2024 - to be able to reject the
petitioner's argument that after the initiation of the evidence-protection proceedings a rebuilding of the war
products has taken place.
Therefore, in accordance with the relatively relaxed evidentiary requirement for conducting an evidence
protection procedure under Article 60(1) of the UPC Agreement, the Court continues to find that the
petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to support that the patent in suit has been infringed by the
respondent's infringing products.
The parties involved in the evidence preservation proceedings
The Court first of all refers to what has been stated above about the rules on preservation of evidence
being a tool that allows the right holder to clarify whether an infringement has occurred or the extent
thereof.
It has not been disputed by the Respondent that the Petitioner's request for preservation of evidence has
rightly been directed against HGSystem ApS if the Court finds that there is reasonably available evidence to
support that the infringing products constitute an infringement of the patent in suit.
However, Rekvisiti has argued that the other parties - HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS,
Infotech Holding ApS and personally should never have been involved in the evidence
protection case.
The Court notes that it is undisputed that Infotech Concept ApS was the registrant of the domain
hgsystem.dk.
The Court further notes that all 4 companies
The Court also finds that the examples of posts on the social media Facebook and LinkedIn from
presented by the petitioner to a certain extent substantiate that there could be a close
mixing of the parties in question at the petitioner, and that it could therefore not be deduced in advance
with which party that possible relevant evidence was located.
Against this background, the Court finds that prior to the request for preservation of evidence, the
applicant did not have the opportunity to familiarise itself with which of the parties involved with the
respondent had relevant possible evidence of a possible infringement of the patent in suit.
Thus, the Court finds that the applicant has adequately explained the reasons that necessitated the
involvement of these parties in the request for preservation of evidence.
73
With reference to this, the Court finds that the applicant has presented reasonably available evidence to
support that all these parties may have participated in the infringement or threatened infringement of the
patent in suit, cf. Article 60(1) of the UPC Agreement.
In continuation of this, the Court finds that it cannot be considered contrary to the principle of
proportionality that the above parties are covered by the order to preserve evidence.
It cannot lead to a different assessment that the petitioner has chosen not to include HGSystem Holding
ApS and Infotech Holding ApS in the subsequent main proceedings.
Conclusion
In the light of the above, the Court upholds the previous order of 26 August 2024, pursuant to Article 60(6)
of the UPC Agreement and Rule 197(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
The report on the taking of evidence drawn up by the independent IT expert appointed shall be
communicated to the representatives of the parties.
The representatives are obliged to keep secret any trade secrets and other confidential information that may
come to their knowledge in this connection.
The decision on costs is reserved until the main proceedings.
Decision of the Court of Justice
The order of 26 August 2024 of the Local Division of the Court of Justice in Copenhagen to grant the
applicant's request regarding European patent no. 4 238 202 B1 for immediate preservation of evidence
and inspection of property without prior notice of requisition pursuant to Article 60 of the UPC Agreement
and Rule 196 of the Rules of Procedure is upheld.
The report prepared by the appointed independent IT expert shall be provided to the
representatives of the parties.
The representatives are obliged to keep secret any trade secrets and other confidential information that
may come to their knowledge as a result.
The report can only be used as evidence in the main proceedings. The
decision on costs is postponed until the main proceedings.
Pursuant to Article 73 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 220 of the Rules of Procedure, the Respondent may,
within 15 days of being notified of the order, appeal it to the Court of Appeal.
74
Name and signature
Agergaar
d
Digitally signed
by Peter Juul
Agergaard
Date: 2024.12.19
08:49:30 +01'00'
Peter Juul Agergaard
DETAILS OF THE ORDER:
Main file reference: ACT_47484/2024
UPC number: UPC_CFI_492/2024
Type of procedure: Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP 19