TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG – Decision of 16 March 2026, Local Division Düsseldorf. Case no. UPC_CFI_733/2024 & UPC_CFI_255/2025
The Düsseldorf Local Division has handed down its decision in TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG, finding infringement of EP 2 624 031 B1 and dismissing IPG’s counterclaim for revocation. Although the judgment applies well established principles of claim interpretation and validity, it contains several noteworthy points on remedies, including a detailed order for disclosure to support a damages claim and a significant 90% costs award.
Background
EP 2 624 031 B1 concerns methods and arrangements for generating laser beams with different beam profile characteristics using multi clad fibres. The patent arose from a divisional application published as EP 2 624 031 A1 based on PCT application WO 2011/124671. The patent is in force in Germany, France and Italy, and claims a priority date of 8 April 2010. TRUMPF alleged that IPG’s “YLS AMB” adjustable mode beam fibre lasers infringed claims 1-3. These products generate a central core beam and a ring beam and are marketed as “two beam lasers”.
TRUMPF relied on direct infringement of claims 2 and 3, and indirect infringement of claim 1. IPG denied infringement and counterclaimed for invalidity on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The case also involved procedural disputes over late filed auxiliary requests and the admissibility of certain submissions, which the Local Division largely rejected under Rules 9.2, 30.2 and 36 RoP.
Claim interpretation
The Local Division adopted the now familiar UPC approach to claim construction, drawing on 10x Genomics v NanoString, VusionGroup v Hanshow and Mammut v Ortovox. The analysis is orthodox but instructive.
A central issue was the meaning of “beam profile characteristic”. The Local Division held that the term refers to the geometry of the decoupled beam in cross section, as illustrated in Figures 5a–5c of the patent, and does not encompass intensity, beam quality or other measurable parameters. This construction was decisive: IPG’s argument that any change in intensity would suffice to produce a “different” profile was rejected.
The court also rejected IPG’s contention that the “first” and “different second” laser beams must originate from different laser sources or have different wavelengths. The distinction lies in the coupling into different regions of the fibre, not in the generation of the beams. As the Local Division put it, the patent does not specify that the beams must be generated by different laser light sources.
IPG further argued that “coupling” required a free space interface between the beam and the fibre, which its spliced combiner module lacked. The Local Division found no basis for such a limitation in the claims or description. Similarly, the “switchable device” of claim 2 was not limited to mechanical optics: electronic control of multiple laser modules was sufficient. The court emphasised that the embodiments do not restrict the claim language.
Validity
IPG’s counterclaim for revocation was dismissed in full.
On novelty, the closest prior art (D6) disclosed combining radiation from multiple fibres into a single output fibre. However, the Local Division held that D6 did not contain a direct and unambiguous disclosure of a suitability for generating different beam profile characteristics. Indeed, the skilled person was “led away” from creating different profiles, as D6 emphasised the advantages of beam combination.
On inventive step, the Local Division applied the holistic approach set out by the Court of Appeal in Edwards v Meril and Amgen v Sanofi. Starting from D6, the skilled person would have no motivation to depart from its teaching. Starting from D7 (TRUMPF’s own “2in1 fibre” article), the only missing feature was the “different second laser beam”, and IPG again failed to show any motivation to modify D7 accordingly. Attacks based on D1 and D3 also failed, as those documents concerned medical irradiation and did not address beam profile characteristics.
Infringement
The Local Division found literal infringement of claim 2. The accused AMB lasers included a multi clad fibre with inner core and outer toroidal core, and their electronically controlled laser modules constituted a “switchable device” capable of coupling different beams into different regions of the fibre. The spliced combiner satisfied the coupling requirement.
Indirect infringement of claim 1 was also established. The products were objectively suitable for carrying out the claimed method, and IPG knew or should have known of their intended use.
Remedies
The remedies section is the most practically significant part of the judgment.
The Local Division granted extensive disclosure under Arts. 67 and 68 UPCA, including information on origin and distribution channels, identities of third parties involved, quantities, prices, dates, advertising activities, costs and profits. Crucially, the court also ordered production of supporting documents such as invoices or delivery notes, noting that the patentee has a legitimate interest in verifying the accuracy of the information “at least on a random basis”. This aligns with earlier UPC decisions (Kaldewei v Bette, Ortovox v Mammut, Panasonic v OPPO) and confirms that the UPC is willing to order substantial disclosure to support damages claims.
The court also ordered recall, final removal from distribution channels and destruction of infringing products, with a six week compliance period. IPG did not argue disproportionality, and the Local Division saw no basis to limit the measures.
Finally, the Local Division awarded €230,000 in provisional damages and cost reimbursement, including €115,000 for TRUMPF’s purchase of an infringing device and €115,000 as provisional reimbursement of litigation costs. This demonstrates the UPC’s readiness to grant meaningful interim financial relief.
Costs
The Local Division ordered IPG to bear 90% of the costs of the infringement action and 100% of the costs of the counterclaim. TRUMPF had succeeded on all substantive issues, losing only on certain remedy requests (notably recall/destruction for indirect infringement). The decision illustrates the significant cost exposure under the UPC’s “loser pays” regime.
Comment
Although the decision applies settled principles of claim interpretation and validity, it is a useful reminder of several trends emerging in UPC practice. The court continues to adopt a broad, functional approach to claim interpretation, resisting attempts to import limitations from embodiments. Validity attacks must be tightly reasoned and obviousness arguments aligned with the Court of Appeal’s holistic framework. And the UPC remains willing to grant powerful remedies, including extensive disclosure and provisional damages, unless disproportionality is clearly shown.
For businesses operating in sectors with complex fibre laser architectures, the case highlights the importance of early freedom to operate analysis and careful scrutiny of multi clad fibre designs. For litigators, it reinforces the need for precise claim construction, coherent validity reasoning and proactive engagement with the UPC’s robust remedial framework.
A copy of the Decision can be found here.
