UPC CFI 318/2025 – igus GmbH v Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Court
Local Division Düsseldorf
Date
Outcome
Default judgment in favor of the Claimant, finding patent infringement and granting injunction, recall, information, damages, and costs.
Sector
Mechanics
Decision Type
Decision by default

Expert Commentary

Full Decision Text

1 Local division Düsseldorf UPC CFI 318/2025 Decision by default of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 5 August 2025 concerning EP 3 912 243 B1 Claimant: igus GmbH, represented by the managing directors Frank Blase, Michael Blaß, Artur Peplinski, Dr. Thilo Konrad Schultes, Tobias Vogel, Spicher Straße 1a, 51147 Cologne, Germany represented by Attorney Dr. André Sabellek, Attorney Tabea Schäfer, rospatt Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Emanuel-Leutze- Straße 11, 40547 Düsseldorf, Germany sabellek@rospatt.deelectronic delivery address: Defendant: Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., represented by the Board of Directors, Floor 2, Building B, No. 1200 Fenghua Road, Jiading District, Shanghai, People's Republic of China PATENT AT ISSUE: European Patent No. EP 3 912 243 B1 PANEL/CHAMBER: Panel of the Local Division Düsseldorf JUDGES The decision was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified judge Dr. Schumacher as rapporteur, and legally qualified judge Agergaard. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: German SUBJECT: Infringement action2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTS: 1. The Claimant is the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 912 243 B1 (hereinafter: the patent at issue). The patent at issue was filed on 14 January 2020 in German as the language of the proceedings. The patent application was published on 24 November 2021. The reference to the grant of the patent at issue was published on 20 March 2024. On 8 April 2024, an application for unitary effect of the patent at issue was filed. The unitary effect was then registered on 17 April 2024 and took effect on 20 March 2024. 2. The patent at issue protects a "compact cable protection guide for clean room applications, as well as a sleeve unit and clamping device therefor". Its patent claim 1 is worded as follows: "Cable protection guide for cables, such as cables, hoses or the like, for clean room applications, with an elongated, flexible sheath (100) which can be moved back and forth, in particular forming a deflection bend (4) between two strands (1, 3), and wherein the flexible sheath can be closed at each end by a clamping device (130) to prevent the escape of particles, wherein the sheath (100) comprises at least one sleeve unit (101; ... 1001) which forms at least one tubular receptacle (102; ... 1002) for guiding at least one line (6), each receptacle (102; ... 1002) extending in a channel-like manner in a longitudinal direction (L) from a first end to a second end; and wherein the casing (100) has a plurality of these tubular receptacles (102; ... 1002) which run parallel to each other for the separate guidance of at least one line (6) in each case, characterised in that the at least one sleeve unit (101; ... 1001) has at least one functional area (110; ... 1010) extending in the longitudinal direction (L) of at least one receiving unit (102; ... 1002), which functional area (110; ... 1010) has two closure profiles (102; ... 1002) and at least one closure profile (102; ... 1002) extending in the (102; ... 1002), has at least one functional area (110; ... 1010) extending in the longitudinal direction (L), which comprises two closure profiles (111, 112; ... 1011, 1012) of a closure, one of the closure profiles (111; ... 1011) cooperates with the other closure profile (112; ... 1012) to close an open state in a dust-tight manner, in which a line (6) can be inserted or removed transversely to the longitudinal direction (L)." 3. The figures shown below illustrate preferred embodiments of the invention. 4. Figure 1A shows the end section of a movable cable protection guide with a flexible sheath:2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 3 5. The section shown below from Figure 12 shows a sleeve unit (1201) with a functional area (1210) with a closure with two closure profiles (1211), (1212): 6. The defendant is a company based in China. It offers a cable protection guide in Germany under the name "CPY" (contested embodiment). The defendant offered the contested embodiment at a trade fair stand at the "Hannover Messe" trade fair, which took place from 31 March to 4 April 2025. In addition, the contested embodiment is advertised in a catalogue (Exhibit rop 6) which the defendant sent electronically to potential customers who visited the aforementioned exhibition stand. The company named as the responsible company on the cover page of the catalogue, "THETA-TECH (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.", is a company affiliated with the defendant, which is also stated in the catalogue ("affiliated to Whale Technology"). The address of the "Company Headquarter" of THETA-TECH (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. stated in the catalogue corresponds to the address of the defendant. The website www.whale-itech.com (see Annex rop 7) stated in the catalogue is the defendant's website.2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 4 7. For illustrative purposes, page 8 of the catalogue is displayed. The contested design is depicted there as follows: APPLICATIONS: 8. The Claimant requests that I. It is established that the defendant has infringed European Patent EP 3 912 243. II. The defendant is prohibited from Cable protection guides for cables, such as cables, hoses or the like, for clean room applications, with an elongated, flexible sheath which can be moved back and forth, in particular forming a deflection bend between two strands, and wherein the flexible sheath can be closed at each end by a clamping device to prevent the escape of particles, wherein the sheath comprises at least one sleeve unit which forms at least one tubular receptacle for guiding at least one cable, each receptacle extending in a channel-like manner in a longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end, and wherein the casing has a plurality of these tubular receptacles, which run parallel to each other for the separate guidance of at least one line in each case, wherein the at least one sleeve unit has at least one function area extending in the longitudinal direction on at least one receptacle, in particular laterally on at least one receptacle, which comprises two closure profiles of a closure, wherein one of the closure profiles cooperates with the other closure profile to close an open state in a dust-tight manner, in which a line can be inserted or removed transversely to the longitudinal direction, in the contracting member states of the EPGÜ (Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Bulgaria (BG), Germany (DE), Denmark (DK), Estonia (EE), Finland (FI), France (FR), Italy (IT), Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Latvia (LV), Malta (MT), Netherlands (NL), Portugal (PT), Sweden (SE) and Slovenia (SI)), or to import or possess them for the aforementioned purposes.2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 5 use them or to import or possess them for the aforementioned purposes. – direct infringement of EP 3 912 243, claim 1 – III. The defendant is ordered, within a period of 30 days after delivery of the notice pursuant to Rule 118(8) sentence 1 RoP and, if necessary, the certified translation, to withdraw from the market at its own expense the products referred to in point II which have been placed on the market since 20 March 2024. 1. to commercial customers in writing, referring to the patent infringement of the products as established by the Unified Patent Court and with a binding commitment to recall the products, to reimburse any payments made and to bear the necessary packaging and transport costs as well as the customs and storage costs associated with the return, and to take back the products, whereby the Claimant shall be provided with a sample of the recall letters and a list of the addressees with their names and postal addresses or, at the defendant's discretion, copies of all recall letters; 2. to remove them permanently from the distribution channels by requesting third parties who are commercial purchasers but not end users to cancel all orders relating to the products referred to in Section II. third parties who are commercial customers but not end users to cancel all orders relating to the products referred to in Section II. and to provide the court and the Claimant with written proof of the measures taken. IV. The defendant is further ordered, within a period of 30 days after service of the notification within the meaning of Rule 118(8) sentence 1 RoP and, where applicable, the certified translation, to 1. to provide the Claimant, by means of a uniform, structured list that can be evaluated by computer, with complete information in electronic form on the extent to which it has committed the acts described in Section II since 20 March 2024, specifying a) the origin and distribution channels of the products referred to in Section II, b) the quantities delivered, received or ordered and the prices paid for the products referred to in Section II, c) the identity, including the names and addresses, of all third parties involved in the manufacture or distribution of the products referred to in Section II, where the defendant must structure the list according to each month of a calendar year and according to each patent-infringing product; 2. the Claimant, as evidence of the information provided in accordance with Section IV. 1, plus information on the profit achieved, the following documents for each month of a2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 6 calendar year and for each patent-infringing product in electronic form that can be evaluated using a computer: a) invoices – or, if these are not available, delivery notes – for the individual deliveries, breaking down the respective deliveries by offer quantities, offer times, prices of the goods offered and type designations, as well as the names and addresses of the commercial recipients of the sales offers for all products sold or otherwise disposed of, b) Proof of the advertising carried out, including proof of these advertising activities, broken down by advertising media, distribution, distribution period and distribution area. c) evidence of the costs, broken down by individual cost factors and the profits achieved, d) invoices – or, if these are not available, delivery notes – and corresponding statements of all costs incurred which the defendant relies on in calculating its profits, whereby confidential details may be blacked out in the information to be disclosed and whereby the accuracy of the information shall be verified and confirmed at the request of the Claimant by a sworn auditor appointed by the Claimant at the expense of the Defendant, whereby the auditor shall be bound to maintain confidentiality towards the Claimant with regard to any information beyond that specified above. V. The defendant is ordered to pay the claimant an amount of EUR 26,000 as provisional damages. VI. The defendant is further ordered 1. in the event of any breach of the order under point II, to pay to the court a penalty payment (which may be repeated) of up to EUR 10,000 per product and/or, in the case of continuous acts, such as offers on the Internet, of up to EUR 30,000 per day for each day of the breach; 2. in the event of any breach of the orders under III, IV and V, to pay to the court a penalty payment (which may be repeated) of up to EUR 30,000 per day for each day of the breach. VII. It is hereby declared that the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Claimant for any damage incurred or to be incurred in the future as a result of actions pursuant to Section II since 20 March 2024. VIII. The defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings.2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 7 IX. The orders pursuant to Sections II – VI shall only be enforceable after the Claimant has informed the court which part of the Orders it intends to enforce, after submitting, where applicable, a certified translation of the Orders into the official language of the Member State of the Contracting State in which enforcement is to take place, and after the Defendant has been served with the notification and, where applicable, the certified translation by the court registry. X. In the event that security is ordered: Partial amounts of the security for (1) the respective order and (2) the decisions on costs shall be determined and the Claimant shall be permitted to provide the security by means of a guarantee issued by a bank or savings bank authorised to operate in the territory of a Member State of the European Union or by deposit. XI. Documents submitted in English do not need to be translated into the language of the proceedings (German). XII. A default judgment pursuant to Article 37 of the Statute of the Court, R. 355 RoP shall be rendered if the defendant, who has been served with a document instituting proceedings or an equivalent document, fails to submit a written defence or fails to appear at the hearing. MAIN ARGUMENTS OF THE CLAIMANT: 9. The Claimant is of the opinion that the contested embodiment literally embodies all the features of claim 1 of the patent at issue. The Defendant has directly infringed the patent at issue by offering and distributing the contested embodiment in Germany and thus in a Contracting Member State of the EPC. This justifies the orders and remedies sought by the plaintiff. Since the defendant did not file a defence within three months of service of the statement of claim in accordance with Rule 23 RoP, the conditions for a default judgment are also met. KEY PROCEDURAL STEPS: 10. The statement of claim dated 3 April 2025 was served on the defendant on the same day. Service was effected by handing the statement of claim to an employee of the defendant by a bailiff at the "Hannover Messe" trade fair stand H 04 (see certificate of service at the trade fair). 11. The defendant did not file a statement of defence. REASONS: I. Requirements for issuing a default decision 12. As a result of of default of defendant , against these in accordance with the application a default judgment pursuant to Art. 37 (1) of the UPC Agreement, Rule 355.1 (a) RoP.2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 8 1. Admissibility of the default judgment 13. The issuance of a default judgment is admissible. 14. A default decision is admissible if (1.) the plaintiff requests such a decision (Art. 37(1) of the UPC Rules, Rule 355.1 RoP), (2.) the defendant has failed to perform an act incumbent upon it within the time limit specified in the Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Procedure provide for a default decision to be issued in such a case (Rule 355(1)(a) RoP) or fails to submit a written defence to a document instituting proceedings that has been served on it (Art. 37(1) UPC Agreement) and (3.) the time limit for responding to the claim or counterclaim has expired and it is therefore certain that the claim or counterclaim was served in such a way that the defendant had sufficient time to prepare its defence (R. 355.3 RoP) (see UPC CFI 193/2024 (LD Munich), default decision of 11 October 2024 – i-mop v. ARCORA). These conditions are met. a) Application by the Claimant 15. Both in its statement of claim dated 3 April 2025 and in its document dated 14 July 2025, the Claimant requested that a default judgment be issued, Art. 37(1) of the UPC Agreement, Rule 355.1 of the Rules of Procedure. b) Failure to submit a written defence to a document instituting proceedings 16. The statement of claim dated 3 April 2025 was served on the defendant on the same day. Service was effected at the defendant's stand at the "Hannover Messe" trade fair and was therefore proper within the meaning of R. 271.5 (a) RoP. 17. According to R. 271.5 (a) RoP, service may be effected at any place within the member states of the contract where the company or other legal entity has a permanent or temporary place of business. The latter may be the case at a trade fair stand if, as is usually the case, at least some advertising for deliveries is also carried out there (UPC CFI 316/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 17 June 2024 – M-A-S v. Altech; see also Tilmann/Plassmann/v. Falck/Stoll, Einheitspatent, Einheitliches Patentgericht, UPC Agreement RoP R. 271 marginal no. 14). This can be assumed if there are no indications to the contrary (see UPC CFI 316/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 17 June 2024 – M-A-S v. Altech). There are no such indications. The fact that the defendant sends a catalogue to potential customers who have visited its exhibition stand suggests that deliveries are also advertised at the trade fair. 18. The defendant did not file a statement of defence within the three-month period for defence pursuant to Rule 23 RoP, which expired on 3 July 2025. It therefore failed to submit a written defence to the document instituting proceedings. For this situation, Art. 37(1) of the UPC Agreement expressly provides for the possibility of a default judgment. Due to this express mention in the EPG Statutes, which in any case take precedence over the Rules of Procedure, it is irrelevant that the Rules of Procedure themselves do not expressly provide for the issuance of a default judgment for this type of default (UPC CFI 193/2024 (LD Munich), default decision of 11 October 2024 – i-mop v. ARCORA).2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 9 c) Expiry of the time limit for reply 19. It also follows from the above explanation that, within the meaning of Rule 355.3 RoP, the time limit for responding to the action has expired and the defendant therefore had sufficient time to prepare its defence. 2. Merits of the default judgment 20. The issuance of a default judgment is objectively justified if the facts presented by the plaintiff justify the claim asserted and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude the issuance of a default judgment (R. 355.2 RoP) and the court exercises its discretion ("may") within the meaning of granting a default judgment (see R. 355.1 RoP). a) Justification of the claim 21. The facts presented by the Claimant justify the asserted claim, R. 355.2 RoP. aa) Subject matter of the patent at issue 22. The patent at issue generally relates to the field of cable routing devices for cables, such as cables for signal or power supply or pneumatic or hydraulic hoses or the like, which are to be dynamically routed between two relatively movable connection points of a machine or system. In particular, a dynamic cable routing device is proposed which is suitable for use in clean rooms. According to the patent at issue, the release of particles by the cable routing device is particularly undesirable and must be avoided as far as possible. The patent at issue mentions semiconductor or flat screen manufacturing, pharmaceutical equipment and medical devices as possible fields of application (para. [0001]). 23. The patent at issue names energy chains as typical cable guide devices. However, these are said to be unsuitable for clean room applications in their conventional link chain design with swivel joints, as such link chains themselves release particles during operation due to abrasion. According to the patent at issue, WO 02/086349 A1 already proposed an energy chain that releases significantly less abrasion thanks to flexible joint connections (para. [0002]). However, the cables guided in such an energy chain, for example the cable sheathing, release particles even during operation (para. [0003]). 24. For this reason, according to the patent at issue, it was known to enclose the cables in a dust-tight manner. Solutions developed for this purpose had already been proposed by the applicant itself in WO 2016/042134 A1 (para. [0006]). 25. The patent at issue recognises generic cable protection guides that are technically simple in design and also compact and lightweight. However, compared to WO 2016/042134 A1, for example, these had the disadvantage that maintenance was only possible with considerable effort. In particular, it was not possible to replace individual cables or individual cable strands on site with cables that were already pre-assembled with the desired plugs or couplings, so that typical cable routing systems were typically completely replaced as a package and even intact cables were replaced.2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 10 typically had to be completely replaced as a package and even intact cables had to be replaced. Furthermore, subsequent modification of an installed cable routing system was not easily possible (see paragraphs [0006], [0007]). 26. On this basis, the patent at issue sees its task in proposing a relatively compact and/or lightweight cable protection guide which at least partially overcomes the aforementioned disadvantages (para. [0008]). In particular, the invention is intended to simplify the replacement of individual cables or individual cable strands and/or optionally used support chains (para. [0009]). 27. To solve this problem, claim 1 of the patent at issue proposes a cable protection guide whose features can be broken down as follows: 1. Conductor protection guide for conductors, such as cables, hoses or the like, for clean room applications 1.1 with an elongated, flexible sheath 1.1.1 which can be moved back and forth, in particular forming a deflection bend between two strands, and 1.1.2 wherein the flexible casing can be closed at each end by a clamping device to prevent particles from escaping, 1.1.3 wherein the casing comprises at least one sleeve unit which forms at least one tubular receptacle for guiding at least one line, 1.1.3.1 wherein each receptacle extends in a channel-like manner in a longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end; and 1.1.4 wherein the casing has a plurality of these tubular receptacles, which run parallel to each other for the separate guidance of at least one line in each case, 1.2 wherein the at least one sleeve unit has at least one function area extending in the longitudinal direction on at least one receptacle, in particular laterally on at least one receptacle, 1.2.1 which comprises two closure profiles of a closure, 1.2.2 wherein one of the closure profiles cooperates with the other closure profile to close an open state in a dust-tight manner, in which a line can be inserted or removed transversely to the longitudinal direction. bb) Realisation of all features of the patent at issue 28. In the statement of claim, the Claimant conclusively argued that the contested embodiment literally implements all the features of claim 1 of the patent at issue. 29. It has explained that the contested embodiment is a cable protection guide for cables, such as wires, hoses or the like, for use in clean rooms (feature 1) and that the contested embodiment has2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 11 an elongated, flexible sheath (feature 1.1). The elongated, flexible sheathing of the contested embodiment classified as clean room consists of interconnected tubular sleeves, known as PODs, made of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (E-PTFE), inside which cables can be accommodated. For illustration purposes, the Claimant has referred to the figure shown below on page 10 of the catalogue (Exhibit rop 6), which shows an application of the contested embodiment in the semiconductor industry: 30. According to the Claimant, the casing of the contested embodiment can be moved back and forth, in particular forming a deflection bend between two strands (feature 1.1.1). The contested embodiment forms an upper strand, a lower strand and a deflection bend with a defined bending radius. The upper strand is attached to a moving end and guided in a left- right direction. 31. According to the conclusive submission of the Claimant, the flexible casing of the contested embodiment can be closed at each end by a clamping device in the form of a mounting bracket to prevent particles from escaping (feature 1.1.2). It has at least one sleeve unit with the individual PODs, which forms at least one tubular receptacle for guiding at least one line (feature 1.1.3). The Claimant referred to page 7 of the catalogue (Exhibit rop 6), where a single POD with the receptacle located inside is illustrated as follows:2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 12 32. According to the Claimant, each receptacle extends in a channel-like manner in a longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end (feature 1.1.3.1), whereby the casing has a plurality of these tubular receptacles, which run parallel to each other for the separate guidance of at least one cable in each case (feature 1.1.4). 33. According to the conclusive submission of the Claimant, the at least one sleeve unit (single POD) also has, on at least one receptacle, in particular on the side of at least one receptacle, at least one functional area extending in the longitudinal direction (feature 1.2), which comprises two closure profiles of a closure (feature 1.2.1). In this context, the Claimant has referred to the following photo of the contested embodiment and marked the closure profiles on a sleeve unit with a red circle: 34. Finally, the Claimant conclusively argued that one of the closure profiles interacts with the other closure profile to close an open state in which a line can be inserted or removed transversely to the longitudinal direction in a dust-tight manner (feature 1.2.2). In this context, it pointed out in particular that the contested embodiment is advertised in the catalogue (Annex rop 6) as dust-free and therefore also has the best possible cleanroom classification (ISO class 1). cc) Use within the scope of the EPGÜ 35. According to the equally conclusive submission of the Claimant, the Defendant offers the contested embodiment within the scope of the EPGÜ, namely in Germany, in accordance with Article 25(a) EPGÜ. This is done by exhibiting the contested embodiment at the "Hannover Messe" in April 2025 by the defendant and by sending the catalogue (Exhibit rop 6) electronically to visitors to the exhibition stand. According to the Claimant, the catalogue was sent by the defendant and not by THETA-TECH (Shanghai) Co.2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 13 dd) Legal consequences 36. The claims asserted by the Claimant arise from the direct infringement of claim 1 of the patent at issue. (1) Declaration of patent infringement 37. The application for a declaration of patent infringement is based on Art. 64(2)(a) EPGÜ. The finding of patent infringement forms the basis for the court to exercise its powers under Article 56 et seq. EPGÜ ( see UPC CFI 210/2023 ( LD Mannheim), decision of 22 November 2024, para. 169 – Panasonic v. OPPO; UPC CFI 16/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), decision of 14 January 2025, p. 35 – Ortovox v. Mammut). (2) Injunction 38. Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the Claimant is entitled to an injunction against the continuation of the infringement pursuant to Art. 25 (a) EPGÜ in conjunction with Art. 63 (1) EPGÜ. (3) Recall and removal from distribution channels 39. The Claimant may demand recall pursuant to Article 25(a) EPGÜ in conjunction with Article 64(2)(b) EPGÜ and final removal from distribution channels pursuant to Article 25(a) EPGÜ in conjunction with Article 64(2)(d) EPGÜ. There are no indications that recall and/or removal from distribution channels are disproportionate within the meaning of Article 64(4) EPGÜ. (4) Provision of information and transmission of information 40. Furthermore, the Claimant has a right to information pursuant to Article 25(a) EPGÜ in conjunction with Article 67 EPGÜ. There are no objections to the requested form of information. 41. Furthermore, pursuant to Art. 68(3)(a) (b) EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 191(1) Alt. 2 RoP, request the information that it reasonably needs for the purpose of pursuing its legal claims and that also enables it to verify the accuracy of the information provided and to obtain evidence for its calculation of damages (UPC CFI 7/2023 (LD Düsseldorf), decision of 3 July 2024, p. 29 – Kaldewei v. Bette; UPC CFI 16/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), decision of 14 January 2025, p. 36 – Ortovox v. Mammut; UPC CFI 11/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), decision of 8 May 2025, para. 164 – Grundfos v. Hefei Xinhu; UPC CFI 210/2023 (LD Mannheim), decision of 22 November 2024, para. 179 – Panasonic v. OPPO). 42. The Claimant may also request that evidence be provided for the information pursuant to Art. 67(1) EPGÜ. This also includes the evidence requested by the Claimant in electronic form. This is because, apart from the interest in the pure information that the patent proprietor receives under Article 67(1) EPGÜ, the patent proprietor's interest in being able to verify the accuracy of this information, at least on a random basis, is also recognisable (UPC CFI 7/2023 (LD Düsseldorf), decision of 3 July 2024, p. 29 – Kaldewei v. Bette; UPC CFI 16/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), decision of 14 January 2025, p. 36 – Ortovox v. Mammut; UPC CFI 210/2023 (LD Mannheim), decision of 22 November 2024, para. 179 – Panasonic v. OPPO).2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 14 43. The requested auditor's reservation, in conjunction with the possibility of redacting confidential details contained in the application itself, allows for an appropriate balance between the injured party's interest in accurate information and the infringer's legitimate interests in confidentiality. (5) Determination of the liability for damages on the merits 44. The liability for damages can be determined on the merits on the basis of Article 68(1) EPC. The defendant should have known that its actions infringed the patent at issue. (6) Provisional reimbursement of costs 45. The Claimant may demand provisional reimbursement of costs from the Defendant in the amount of EUR 26,000, R. 150.2 RoP. 46. The award of the amount sought is justified because the Claimant has argued that it has already incurred legal and patent attorney's fees of more than EUR 15,000 for the preparation of the statement of claim and has also paid court costs of EUR 11,000. 47. The fact that the Claimant has cited provisional damages pursuant to R. 119 RoP as the basis for the amount it is seeking is irrelevant. The Claimant's claim is clearly aimed at provisional reimbursement of costs and its statement of facts justifies the award made. (7) Threat of coercive measures 48. The threat of a penalty payment for failure to comply (Art. 63(2) EPGÜ) does not give rise to any concerns. This also applies when considering aspects of proportionality. The threat of measures to provide information, transmit information, recall and remove products is based on Art. 82(1) and (4) EPGÜ, R. 354.3 RoP (UPC CFI 7/2023 (LD Düsseldorf), decision of 3 July 2024, p. 31 – Kaldewei v. Bette; UPC CFI 16/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), decision of 14 January 2025, p. 39 – Ortovox v. Mammut; UPC CFI 50/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), decision of 10 April 2025, para. 276 et seq. – Yellow Sphere v. Knaus Tabbert; UPC CFI 11/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), decision of 8 May 2025, para. 179 – Grundfos v. Hefei Xinhu). 49. The threatened penalty payment of up to EUR 10,000 per product and/or, in the case of ongoing actions, e.g. offers on the Internet, of up to EUR 30,000 per day for failure to comply with the obligation to refrain from use, and of up to EUR 30,000 per day of delay in recall, removal from distribution channels, provision of information and transmission of information, gives the local division the necessary flexibility to take into account the circumstances of the individual case, including the conduct of the infringer, in the event of an infringement and, on this basis, to set an appropriate penalty payment in accordance with Article 82(4) sentence 2 EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 354.4 RoP. Therefore, the imposition of a fixed sum does not appear to be appropriate, and the chosen range – including the maximum amount – does not give rise to any concerns with regard to certainty.2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 15 (8) Determination of the period 50. The period within which the information must be provided, the information must be transmitted and the recall and removal from the distribution channels must be carried out is based on Rules 118.8 and 354.1 RoP. b) Procedural conduct of the defendant 51. There is no procedural conduct on the part of the defendant that could prevent the issuance of a default decision within the meaning of R. 355.2 RoP. c) Exercise of discretion 52. In view of all this, the court, taking into account the interests of both parties, exercises its discretion to issue a default judgment. II. Decision on costs 53. The decision on costs is based on Art. 69(2) EPGÜ in conjunction with R. 118(5) RoP. III. Enforceability 54. The enforceability of the default decision follows from Art. 82(1) sentence 2 EPGÜ, R. 354 RoP and R. 355.4 RoP. The court sees no reason in the present case to suspend enforcement pursuant to Rule 355.4 (a) RoP or to make enforcement pursuant to Rule 355.4 (b) RoP.2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 16 DECISION: I. It is hereby determined that the defendant has infringed European patent EP 3 912 243. II. The defendant is prohibited from Cable protection guides for cables, such as cables, hoses or the like, for clean room applications, with an elongated, flexible sheath which can be moved back and forth, in particular forming a deflection bend between two strands, and wherein the flexible sheath can be closed at each end by a clamping device to prevent the escape of particles, wherein the sheath comprises at least one sleeve unit which forms at least one tubular receptacle for guiding at least one cable, each receptacle extending in a channel-like manner in a longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end; and wherein the casing has a plurality of these tubular receptacles, which run parallel to each other for the separate guidance of at least one line in each case, wherein the at least one sleeve unit has, on at least one receptacle, in particular laterally on at least one receptacle, at least one function area extending in the longitudinal direction, which comprises two closure profiles of a closure, wherein one of the closure profiles cooperates with the other closure profile to close an open state in a dust-tight manner, in which a line can be inserted or removed transversely to the longitudinal direction. in the contracting member states of the EPGÜ (Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Bulgaria (BG), Germany (DE), Denmark (DK), Estonia (EE), Finland (FI), France (FR), Italy (IT), Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Latvia (LV), Malta (MT), the Netherlands (NL), Portugal (PT), Sweden (SE) and Slovenia (SI)) or to import or possess them for the aforementioned purposes. III. The defendant is ordered, within a period of 30 days after service of the notification within the meaning of Rule 118(8) sentence 1 RoP and, where applicable, the certified translation, to recall at its own expense the products referred to in point II which have been placed on the market since 20 March 2024 1. from commercial purchasers in writing, referring to the patent infringement status of the products as established by the Unified Patent Court and with a binding commitment to to reimburse any fees and necessary packaging and transport costs as well as customs and storage costs associated with the return and to take back the products, whereby the Claimant shall be provided with a sample of the recall letters and a list of the addressees with their names and postal addresses or, at the defendant's discretion, copies of all recall letters; 2. to remove the products from the distribution channels by requesting third parties who are commercial customers but not end users, with reference to the patent infringement established by the Unified Patent Court, to cancel all orders relating to the products referred to in Section II.2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 17 and to provide the court and the Claimant with written proof of the measures taken. IV. The defendant is further ordered, within a period of 30 days after service of the notification within the meaning of Rule 118(8) sentence 1 RoP and, where applicable, the certified translation, 1. to provide the Claimant, in electronic form, with a complete list, in a uniform and orderly manner that can be evaluated by computer, of the extent to which it has committed the acts referred to in Section II since 20 March 2024, stating a) the origin and distribution channels of the products referred to in Section II, b) the quantities delivered, received or ordered and the prices paid for the products referred to in Section II, c) the identity, including names and addresses, of all third parties involved in the manufacture or distribution of the products referred to in Section II, where the defendant must structure the list according to each month of a calendar year and according to each product infringing the patent; 2. the following documents for each month of a calendar year and for each product infringing the patent in electronic form, which can be evaluated using a computer, to the Claimant as evidence of the information provided in accordance with Section IV. 1, plus information on the profit made: a) invoices – or, if these are not available, delivery notes – for the individual deliveries, breaking down the respective deliveries by offer quantities, offer times, prices of the goods offered and type designations, as well as the names and addresses of the commercial recipients of the sales offers for all products sold or otherwise disposed of, b) Proof of the advertising carried out, including proof of these advertising activities, broken down by advertising media, distribution, distribution period and distribution area. c) evidence of the costs, broken down by individual cost factors and the profits achieved, d) Invoices – or, if these are not available, delivery notes – and corresponding statements of all costs incurred which the defendant refers to in calculating its profits,2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 18 whereby details subject to confidentiality may be blacked out in the information to be disclosed and whereby the accuracy of the information shall be verified and confirmed at the Claimant's request by a certified auditor appointed by the Claimant at the Defendant's expense, whereby the auditor shall be bound to maintain confidentiality vis-à-vis the Claimant with regard to any information beyond that specified above. V. The defendant is ordered to pay the claimant an amount of EUR 26,000 as provisional reimbursement of costs. VI. The defendant is ordered 1. in the event of any breach of the order under point II, to pay to the court a penalty payment (which may be repeated) of up to EUR 10,000 per product and/or, in the case of continuous acts, such as offers on the Internet, of up to EUR 30,000 per day for each day of the breach; 2. in the event of any breach of the orders under Sections III, IV and V, to pay to the court a penalty payment (which may be repeated) of up to EUR 30,000 per day for each day of the breach. VII. It is hereby declared that the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Claimant for any damage incurred or to be incurred in the future as a result of actions pursuant to Section II since 20 March 2024. VIII. The defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings. IX. The orders pursuant to Sections II – VI shall only be enforceable after the Claimant has informed the Court which part of the Orders it intends to enforce, after it has submitted, if necessary, a certified translation of the Orders into the official language of the Member State of the Contracting State in which enforcement is to take place, and after the Defendant has been served with the notification and, if necessary, the certified translation by the court registry. X. The value in dispute for the action is set at EUR 500,000. DETAILS OF THE ORDER: App 32878/2025 relating to the main file reference ACT 16202/2025 UPC number: UPC CFI 318/2025 Type of proceedings: Patent infringement action2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 19 Issued in Düsseldorf on 5 August 2025 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Presiding Judge Thomas Legally qualified judge Dr Schumacher Legally qualified judge Agergaard For the Deputy Registrar2025-08-05 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 318-2025 App 32878-2025 ORD 34299-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com

Key Holdings

  • The defendant has infringed European Patent EP 3 912 243.
  • The defendant is prohibited from offering, placing on the market, using, importing, or possessing the infringing cable protection guides in the contracting member states of the EPGÜ.
  • The defendant is ordered to recall infringing products placed on the market since 20 March 2024 and remove them permanently from distribution channels.
  • The defendant is ordered to provide comprehensive information on the extent of infringement, including origin, distribution channels, quantities, prices, and identities of third parties, along with supporting documents and profit information.
  • The defendant is obliged to compensate the Claimant for any damage incurred or to be incurred in the future as a result of the infringing actions.

Tags

  • Costs
  • Damages
  • Default Judgment
  • Disclosure
  • Infringement
  • Injunction
  • Recall
  • Unified Patent Court

Related Cases