Evac Oy v. (1) Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. (2) Satzungsmäßiger Sitz and (3) VD Solutions GmbH, UPC CFI, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 June 2026, Case No. UPC_CFl_811/2024
Background
The Claimant, “Evac” specialises in, among other things, waste treatment systems and is the owner of two patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1 (the “Patents”) relating to vacuum sewage systems. An opt-out for both Patents was filed with the UPC on 9 June 2023 and withdrawn on 14 December 2023.
Evac issued proceedings against all three Defendants before the UPC on 20 December 2024 for infringement of the Patents in connection with sale by the Defendants of unauthorised spare parts for Evac marine toilets. In order to establish infringement, Evac made trap purchases of certain spare parts offered for sale by the Defendants, with the last trap purchase made in August 2021.
The Defendants sought to resist Evac’s claim for damages for infringement of the Patents on two grounds:
- The claim was time barred, as it fell outside the relevant limitation period.
- Evac was in any event prevented by forfeiture from bringing a claim for patent infringement on the grounds that it was aware of and had consented (whether express or implied) to the alleged infringement.
This article focusses on the limitation period issues in this case and therefore does not address the issue of forfeiture, although it is noted that the UPC CFI did not accept the Defendants’ arguments on this ground. Further, issues and findings around infringement are not addressed in this article.
Relevant limitation period
Article 72 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (“UPCA”) is as follows:
Period of limitation
Without prejudice to Article 24(2) and (3), actions relating to all forms of financial compensation may not be brought more than five years after the date on which the applicant became aware, or had reasonable grounds to become aware, of the last fact justifying the action.
However, the Defendants argued the 5 year limitation period under Art 72 UPCA should not apply in this case. Instead, the limitation periods in the German Civil Code (“BGB”) should apply. Under the BGB, contractual and statutory claims are subject to a three year limitation period (§195 BGB), counted from the end of the calendar year in which the claim arose and the patentee had or should have had knowledge of the claim (§199 BGB). The Defendants further argued that as the final trap purchase had been made in August 2021, more than 3 years had passed prior to the UPC claim being issued, and therefore the claim was time-barred under German rules.
Evac argued that its claims were not time-barred because the German limitation period was suspended when the UPC action was filed pursuant to §167 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (“ZPO”) and §204(1)no1 BGB.
Findings on limitation
The Panel held:
- The only rule to applied in relation to limitation is Art 72 UPCA, following M-A-S v Altech [UPC_CFI_316/2024 (LK Dusseldorf), decision of 10 December 2025, para. 303]. [judgment paragraph 172]
- Injunctions are forward looking and therefore are not subject to the limitation period in Art 72 UPCA. If a patent remains in force and there has been a finding of infringement, there is no reason to refrain from granting an injunction to restrain further infringement, even where the previous infringement occurred some time ago. [judgment paragraph 173]
- The requirements for an award of damages for patent infringement under Art 68(1) UPCA are met in this case. [judgment paragraph 174]
- Damages can be claimed in relation to infringing acts dating back to 2015 [judgment paragraph 176]
- The limitation period under Art 72 UPCA begins to run from the last triggering event giving rise to a claim for patent infringement.A triggering event requires that the patentee became, or could reasonably have become, aware of the infringing act(s). In the absence of a triggering event, the limitation period does not begin to run. M-A-S v Altech [UPC_CFI_316/2024 (LK Dusseldorf), decision of 10 December 2025] and Quantify v. Canfield Scientific [UPC_CFl_559/2024 (LK Dusseldorf), decision of 23 April 2026, Rn. 255]. In this case, this was the final trap purchase in August 2021. [judgment paragraph 177]
- The earliest point at which Evac was aware of the infringing acts was when the trap purchase was made in August 2021. The Defendants had not proved that Evac knew about any infringing acts prior to that point. [judgment paragraph 178]
- Accordingly, the limitation period has not expired and Evac’s claim is not time-barred on the facts. [judgment paragraph 179]
Implications of this judgment
Patentees should be aware that the five year limitation period stipulated under Art 72 UPCA applies for patent infringement claims before the UPC, which will start to run from the date that a patentee becomes (or could reasonably have become) aware of any infringing act. Patent owners should therefore take prompt steps to secure evidence of infringement where possible (e.g. through trap purchases), and issue proceedings without undue delay.
The order can be read here.
