The UPC Court of Appeal has ended a dispute between two major egg packaging manufacturers, ruling in favor of German company Omni-pac while largely preserving the patent at the center of the case.
Case Background
Danish packaging manufacturer Hartmann and its German competitor Omni-pac have been fighting over patent EP 2 755 901 at the Unified Patent Court for more than two years. In March 2024, Hartmann filed an infringement lawsuit against two Omni-pac entities at the Düsseldorf local division, targeting the ComPac egg packs sold for 6, 10 or 12 eggs. Omni-pac responded with a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent.
The patent covers a display and distribution package for eggs made from fibrous material, with a closing mechanism that allows manufacturers to use a larger label area on the front of the packaging. It remains valid in Germany, France and the Netherlands. The closure technology in question enables producers to secure the package while maintaining sufficient surface space for branding and product information, which has become increasingly important as retailers require more detailed labeling for consumer information and regulatory compliance.
Lower Court Ruling
In October 2025, the Düsseldorf local division dismissed Hartmann’s infringement action and partially revoked the patent. Claim 1 of EP 901 as originally granted lacked inventive step over prior art EP 1 389 590, but was upheld in amended form in accordance with Hartmann’s second auxiliary request. The court also upheld method claim 6 as granted. Both parties appealed the decision.
Related: Patent holders must amend some claims
The second panel at the Court of Appeal, presided over by judge Rian Kalden and comprising judge rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, Patricia Rombach, and technically qualified judges Elisabetta Papa and Erwin Wismeth, has now largely confirmed the findings from the first instance ruling.
Appellate Decision
The Court of Appeal judges revoked claim 6 as granted on the grounds of lack of inventive step. However, they upheld both claim 1 and claim 6 in amended form under Hartmann’s second auxiliary request. This ultimately did not help Hartmann with its infringement claims. The judges dismissed all of Hartmann’s claims at the final stage, basing their decision on the interpretation of a feature requiring an upwards-extending retaining projection on the bottom part of the packaging.
The value of the appeal proceedings was set at €500,000 for both the infringement action and the revocation action.
The European egg packaging market involves roughly 6.7 million tonnes produced and packaged each year in the European Union alone. Hartmann, Omni-pac and Huhtamaki are the main players in this space, with industry projections suggesting the market will reach $8.20 billion by 2034.
Related: A&O Shearman Expands US Patent Team with Judge
Hartmann first initiated legal action against Omni-pac in 2014 over a different patent at the Düsseldorf Regional Court. The German Federal Court of Justice upheld that earlier patent in a limited form, and the parties eventually settled. Hartmann had also previously taken action against Finnish competitor Huhtamaki, with that dispute ending in a settlement as well.
The Court of Appeal’s confirmation of EP 901 in amended form represents at least a partial win for Hartmann. The Danish company retains the ability to pursue the patent against other market participants or future product versions from Omni-pac.
Legal Teams
Anton Horn, a partner at Düsseldorf-based Heuking, led the case for Hartmann, continuing a client relationship that dates back to the earlier German proceedings. Danish patent attorney Jan Sørensen from Budde Schou provided technical support throughout the UPC proceedings. Unlike in the earlier German proceedings, Hartmann did not engage German patent attorneys for the UPC case, relying instead on its Danish patent counsel. Heuking senior associate Birthe Struck completed the team on behalf of Hartmann.
Omni-pac relied on Christof Augenstein, a partner at Düsseldorf-based Kather Augenstein, working alongside patent attorney Claus Becker from the Hamburg-based IP firm Glawe Delfs Moll. Glawe Delfs Moll had also represented Omni-pac in the earlier German proceedings. Kather Augenstein then joined the team specifically to defend against the UPC claim. Nicole Schopp, an associate at Kather Augenstein, also contributed to the successful defense.
