Canfield now faces injunction in five European countries in QuantifiCare dispute

Canfield may no longer sell its 3D imaging system Canfield Vectra H2 in Belgium, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. Last week the Düsseldorf local division under presiding judge Ronny Thomas ruled that Canfield had infringed QuantifiCare’s patent EP 3 156 843. The UPC judges also rejected Canfield’s counterclaim for revocation (case IDs: UPC_CFI_559/2024 and UPC_CFI_106/2025).

EP 843 protects a device and method for three-dimensional reconstruction of the head and body. In 2015, QuantifiCare filed a French patent application to protect key aspects of its LifeViz Infinity product — a portable, all-in-one 3D imaging system for face, breast and body imaging. The camera is primarily used in plastic surgery.

The panel of the Düsseldorf local division consisted of Ronny Thomas, Jule Schumacher, and Peter Agergaard as legally qualified judges. Stefan Wilhelm was technically qualified judge.

The judges preceded the judgment with a guiding principle, stating: “For an order to be issued in respect of all Contracting Member States in which the patent is in force, it is sufficient to determine an infringing act in one Contracting Member State. This applies even if an infringing act can only be determined in a Contracting Member State in which the patent proprietor does not assert any claims in the infringement action for procedural reasons (‘carve out’)”.

UPC case does not relate to Germany

QuantifiCare had not extended the UPC action to Germany after previous success at Düsseldorf Regional Court. In April 2024, the court’s 4a Civil Chamber ruled that Canfield’s device infringes QuantifiCare’s patent. The court ordered the German and US subsidiaries of Canfield to cease distribution of the product in Germany. Canfield has since appealed the judgment. The Higher Regional Court will hear the case in September 2026.

Previously, the Federal Court of Justice had upheld the German part of EP 843. Canfield has not yet lodged an appeal against the UPC’s current decision. However, given the vehemence with which the two opponents are fighting in the European courts, this is very likely. The companies are also fighting in the US.

QuantifiCare has not enforced the ruling of the Düsseldorf Regional Court. JUVE Patent currently has no information if the company intends to do so following the recent ruling by the local division.

Counsel reorganised

While QuantifiCare’s counsel remains unchanged, Canfield reorganised its counsel panel following the negative national judgments in Germany. Initially, Canfield was represented by IP boutique Grünecker in the German proceedings. But with the start of the UPC case, Kather Augenstein came into play. The Düsseldorf-based IP litigation firm then took over representation of Canfield. The team is also handling the appeal against the Düsseldorf Regional Court injunction.

Miriam Kiefer leads the Kather Augenstein team, while counsel Benjamin Pesch and associate Benedikt Walesch provide support. Responsible for the technical part is patent attorney Bernhard Thum from Thum & Partner.

As in the German proceedings, QuantifiCare was once again successful at the UPC with lawyer Felix Klopmeier from Düsseldorf firm Lang & Rahmann. Patent attorney Dirk Schulz from Düsseldorf IP firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner leads on technical aspects.