Download now: life sciences - whitepaper: building an investable ip portfolio
​

When is a managing director an accomplice to patent infringement?

​
Emily Atherton
​
November 26, 2025
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Infringement
Other procedural aspects
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Philips v Belkin

UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025 and UPC_CoA_683/2024, decision of 3 October 2025 [1]

This is an appeal against a finding of infringement by Belkin of Philips’ patent relating to wireless inductive power transfer, and against the dismissal of Belkin’s counterclaim for invalidity. In addition to injuncting several Belkin group companies, the first instance judgment ordered the managing directors of Belkin to “refrain from performing their services as managing director . . . in such a way that the patent-infringing acts are carried out” as accomplices to the infringement. It did not, however, injunct the managing directors more generally (i.e. if they were to start a new company to carry on infringement) or require any payment of damages by the directors.

Both Belkin and Philips appealed. Belkin requested that both decisions be set aside in their entirety, the infringement proceedings to be dismissed, and the patent to be revoked in Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden. Belkin also expanded its arguments on first instance and claimed for the first time invalidity due to lack of inventive step. Philips requested that Belkin’s managing directors be ordered to cease and desist, provide further information and to pay damages, as well as requesting that Belkin pay the costs of the case and extend the recall following the finding of infringement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Belkin’s request for dismissal of the counterclaim for revocation. In doing so, they did substantially consider Belkin’s new arguments, stating that they were “a matter of different understanding of disclosure passages in a document of the prior art on which Belkin had already based its argumentation in the first instance”, and that Phillips had sufficient opportunity to comment.

The Court of Appeal also dismissed Belkin’s appeal against the finding of infringement against the Belkin group companies. However, the Court did dismiss the order against the managing directors, finding that their activities were not sufficient to establish themselves as accomplices. The Court clarified that for a managing director to be an accomplice, they must either deliberately use the company to commit patent infringement, or if they are aware that the company is committing patent infringement, aware that the act of use is illegal, and takes no action to stop the infringement

[1] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/149310

‍

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
​
Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
​
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.
​