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

Hamburg Local Division grants ex parte provisional injunction based on exhibition at IFA trade fair 2024 in Berlin

No items found.
​
September 26, 2024
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Recent cases
Provisional injunction
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Shenzhen Yunding Information Co., Ltd. (UPC_CFI_516/2024)

ORD_50890/2024 dated 9 September 2024 concerning EP 3 197 316

After visiting trade fair IFA 2024, which started on 6 September 2024 in Berlin, claimant and patentee Koninklijke Philips N.V (in short "Philips") successfully requested an ex-parte provisional injunction on 9 September 2024 before the Local Division of Hamburg after it realized that Shenzhen Yunding Information Co., Ltd presented the attacked embodiments of electric tooth brushes with labelling "Oclean" and "X Ultra S" at their trade fair stand.

Prior to requesting the provisional injunction, the applicant had drawn the alleged infringer's attention to the infringing acts by way of a cease-and-desist letter dated August 22, 2024. The cease-and-desist letter was accompanied by a draft application for a provisional injunction.

Although the respondent subsequently issued a declaration that it would cease-and-desist under penalty, did not dispute the infringement of the patent, and also stated that it would not attend the trade fair IFA 2024, the claimant realized only some days later that this was obviously not adhered to and decided to file the application for provisional injunction.

The Hamburg Local Division considered the request for provisional injunction as being justified.

Since the respondent did not dispute the infringement of the patent as granted and has also signed the cease-and-desist letter, there were no grounds for assuming non-infringement.

The matter was considered urgent (R. 209.2b) RoP), because the request for provisional injunction was filed within a few days after knowledge of infringement. As the IFA is an important trade fair with considerable relevance for the industry and irreparable damage is to be feared, the application for a provisional injunction was also considered appropriate and justified (R. 212.1 RoP).

The Hamburg Local Division considered the validity of the patent as granted to be secured to the extent necessary for the issuance of the provisional injunction because no opposition was filed against the patent after it was granted in July 2023, comparable patents with essentially identical scope of protection were also granted in Japan, USA and China, and the defendant was unable to present any relevant prior art in the pre-trial correspondence with the claimant.

Last but not least, the Hamburg Local Division prescribed that the court's order is to be presented in person at the IFA 2024 trade fair in Berlin by the applicant's authorized UPC representatives together with a copy of the application for provisional injunction, including the evidence and other documents on which the order is based (R. 212.2, 276.1 RoP).

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.
​