REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

No Declaration of Non-Infringement for Alternative Product

​
Michael Nielsen
​
November 12, 2025
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
Infringement
UPC
Recent cases
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

HL Display v. Black Sheep

UPC_CFI_386/2024 (The Hague LD), decision of 10 October 2025 [1]

Summary

The Unified Patent Court rejected Black Sheep’s request for a declaration of non-infringement (DNI) for an alternative product design. The court found the request inadmissible because HL Display had not asserted infringement against the alternative design, and Black Sheep had not formally sought acknowledgment of non-infringement before filing the counterclaim.

Background

HL Display and Black Sheep Retail Products are competing producers of accessories for shop shelves, such as shelf dividers. HL Display sued Black Sheep for infringing its patent EP2432351, which covers a system for securing shelf accessories to shop shelves. The system includes front and rear securing devices and a shelf accessory designed to prevent accidental disengagement while allowing intentional release. The invention lies primarily in the configuration of the shelf accessory and the rear securing device.

Declaration of non-infringement

Along with its counterclaim for revocation, Black Sheep applied for a declaration of non-infringement (DNI) based on a proposed an alternative design, which allegedly lacked a key feature of the claims.

Rule 61 RoP sets out the circumstances under which the court can provide a declaration that the performance of a specific act does not, or a proposed act would not, constitute an infringement of a patent. In particular, a DNI may be made by the court if:

  • the proprietor (or their licensee) has asserted that the act is an infringement; or,
  • the applicant has provided full details of the act and requested acknowledgment of non-infringement, and the proprietor (or licensee) has refused or failed to provide the requested acknowledgement within one month.

In this case, HL Display had not asserted that the alternative design infringed the patent. The court held that the assertion of the patent against the original product was not sufficient to meet the first alternative criterion above.

Black Sheep also had not made a separate request for acknowledgement of non-infringement from the HL Display. The court considered the argument that the counterclaim for a DNI was itself the request for acknowledgement of non-infringement, but ultimately decided that such an interpretation would undermine the purpose of the rule: to prevent unnecessary proceedings for a declaration of non-infringement when the proprietor or its licensee has not yet asserted the patent with respect to a certain product (or process). It would also render the relevant parts of Rule 61 redundant. The court therefore found that the counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement was inadmissible.

Key Takeaway

A declaration of non-infringement cannot be obtained based on a modified product against which infringement has not been specifically alleged unless the applicant has already requested (and failed to obtain) acknowledgement of non-infringement from the patent proprietor. The same reasoning can presumably be extended to other potentially infringing acts based on modified methods as well as modified products.

[1][ https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/159498

‍

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​