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

No items found.
​
September 26, 2024
#
UPC
#
Recent cases
#
Provisional injunction
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

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​