Cardo Systems, Ltd. v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited (UPC_CFI_1382/2025 relating to EP4240194)
This Decision from the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan relates to EP4240194. The unitary effect of the patent was registered on 30 October 2024, prior to a separate application for provisional measures at ECIMA 2024, which we reported here2.
Previously, Cardo Systems, Ltd. (“Cardo”) requested a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. (“Ziwu”) and Resosport Limited (“Reso”), to prevent the showcasing and sale of Reso’s allegedly infringing products at the “International Motorcycle Exhibition” (“EICMA”) between 4 and 9 November 2025.
Ziwu was the manufacturer of the allegedly infringing products, while Reso was responsible for the website resosport.com, where the products were offered for sale.
The Court initially granted the requested provisional injunction (although the order is indicated as “not public” in the CMS), ordering Reso to refrain from any further acts of infringement.
Following Cardo’s serving of the order on Reso at EICMA, Reso filed an application for review, pursuant to R. 212 and 197.3 RoP.
The Court decided to revoke the initially granted provisional injunction based on a finding of non-infringement of Reso.
The parties discussed the scope of review proceedings for ex parte provisional injunctions.
Cardo argued that the purpose of review proceedings is that of enabling the Court to review any obvious errors made when issuing said order. Cardo also argued that the Court should make an ex tunc assessment of the facts available at the date of the decision.
Reso, on the other hand, rejected Cardo’s position, arguing that in the case of an ex parte provisional injunction, the alleged infringer’s substantive arguments on infringement and validity were to be examined in detail, and that the ex tunc assessment invoked by Cardo should only apply in cases relating to preservation of evidence or inspection, in which no other consideration of the result of the order was needed.
The Court agreed with Reso’s position, explaining that respondents must be given the right to a full defence. The Court stated: “The determination of whether the requirements of sufficient degree of certainty (as to validity and infringement) and necessity (balance of interests) must necessarily take into account all the defences raised by the applicant in their application for review, without any possible limitation arising from the adoption of an ex tunc perspective”.
The main arguments from Cardo and Reso related to features 1.9 and 1.10 of claim 1 of EP’194. Features 1.9 and 1.10 describe a securing element, which, in a securing position, prevents movement of a functional unit in a in a detaching direction, and the detaching direction extending substantially parallel to a second direction, namely the longitudinal direction (L) or the transverse direction (T).
Interestingly, the Court’s assessment on claim interpretation also took into account Cardo’s arguments during prosecution of the patent to aid the interpretation of the claim features of a “securing element… transferable between a securing position and a releasing position”. The Court explained that while statements made by a patent proprietor during prosecution are not binding, they may provide guidance regarding the interpretation given to features by the skilled person (see UPC CFI no. 727/2024, LD Milan, decision of 5 May 2026).
Ultimately, the Court found that the products of Reso did not fall under the literal scope of the patent claims, because, as explained by Reso, “attaching and detaching the functional unit to and from the receiving unit happens exclusively in a connection direction that is orthogonal to the abutting surfaces of the two units”.
Cardo argued that releasing the functional unit from the receiving unit in the height direction rather than in a longitudinal or transverse direction is technically equivalent to releasing in the longitudinal or transverse direction, because this detaching direction achieves the same function in the same manner as the detaching direction of the patent.
The Court did not agree with Cardo’s argument, deeming that generalising the claim feature to extend to detachment resulting from “a movement” would be too vague to constitute a valid basis for patent infringement by equivalence. The Court came to this decision to preserve the balance of legal certainty between parties: accepting infringement by equivalence in this case may have resulted in an unacceptable broadening of the scope of protection of the patent.
The Court decided that Reso’s products implement the features relating to the securing element “in open and direct contradiction to what is expressly claimed in the patent”. Accordingly, the court decided that it is more likely than not that Reso’s allegedly infringing products do not fall under the scope of EP’194, neither literally, nor equivalently.
Since the Court ruled that there was no infringement, validity of EP’194 was not assessed in detail.
Since the provisional injunction order was revoked, Reso requested, pursuant to R. 213.2 RoP, to receive appropriate compensation for any injuries caused by the provisional measures. Reso argued that they suffered reputational damage as part of the police’s intervention at EICMA. The Court did not find the evidence submitted by Reso sufficient, as it amounted to three photographs from a Chinese social network.
However, the Court did award Reso interim costs in the amount of EUR 28.000, with full costs to be deferred until the main proceedings.
The Court ordered payment of the interim costs from the security deposit, stating that as provided for in R. 211.5 RoP, the security deposit is “for appropriate compensation for any injury likely to be caused to the defendant”. In this case that Reso was entitled to obtain the release of the security for the limited amount of EUR 28.000, which corresponds to the interim costs.
The Court ordered the release of the remaining amount of the security deposit back to Cardo.
The Court revoked the order of 5 November 2025, setting the value of the case at EUR 500.000, ordering releasing the seized goods in favour of Ziwu and Reso and ordering payment, from the security deposit, of an interim award of costs to Reso and Ziwu in the amount of EUR 28.000, pursuant to R. 211.1(d) RoP and Art. 69 UPCA, with the remainder of the security deposit to be released back to Cardo.
[1] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183564