UPC_CFI_479/2025 – Washtower v IBG

Court
Local Division The Hague
Date
Outcome
Granted
Sector
Other
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Service of judgment Facts 1. The Court granted a preliminary injunction on the condition of a certain security to be given before enforcement. 2. Washtower indicated to the Court that they wanted to enforce and posted the security with the Court. 3. The Court invited the defendants’ representatives to indicate if they were willing to accept service of the judgment. This was accepted. 4. The Court orders the Registry to serve the judgment. Comment 1. Three defendants in this case are located in Germany and one in Poland. The representatives also represented the defendants in the proceedings. Why then did the Court ask the representatives if they were willing to accept service of the judgment? 2. The question arises whether Part 5, Chapter 2, entitled “Service” of the Rules of Procedure is applicable to the service of judgments, or only to service of the Statement of Claim and “all originating pleadings in actions referred to in Art. 32(1) of the Agreement”? A judgment is not a pleading. So, the answer seems to be that Part 5 Chapter 2 of the Rules is on the face of it not applicable. However, R. 276 RoP explicitly declares Chapter 2 applicable to service of orders and decisions. 3. In any event, service of a judgment has to be in conformity with Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, of which Article 19 for electronic service has rather strict conditions. The relevant question is whether there is express consent of the defendants to serve electronically on the address of representatives in the course of the proceedings. I assume that service of a judgment is service “in the course of the proceedings”. Would the fact that a representative gives its email address to be able to act for the defendant in the proceedings, amount to express consent also for serving the judgment? The Court apparently doubts this.

Full Decision Text

UPC_CFI_479/2025 ACT_25599/2025 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2025 CLAIMANTS 1) Washtower IP B.V. Represented by Peter van (Applicant) - Enschedesestraat 300 - 7552 CN - Schijndel Hengelo - NL 2) Washtower B.V. Represented by Peter van (Applicant) - Enschedesestraat 300 - 7552 CN - Schijndel Hengelo - NL DEFENDANT/S 1) Wasombouw B.V. Withdrawn (Defendant) - Frankrijkstraat 3 – 5171 PR - Kaatsheuvel - NL 2) INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS Represented by Volkmar Henke GMBH (Defendant) - Pyrmonter Straße 78 - 32676 - Lügde - DE 3) BEGA CONSULT INTERNATIONALE Represented by Volkmar Henke HANDELSAGENTUR GMBH & CO. KG (Defendant) - Siemensstraße 2 - 32676 - Lügde - DE 1 4) BEGA BBK SP. Z O.O. SP. K.UL. Represented by Volkmar Henke (Defendant) - Poznańska 113A - PL 62-052 - Komorniki - PL 5) NEG NOVEX WHOLESALE COMPANY FOR Represented by Volkmar Henke ELECTRICAL AND BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING GMBH (Defendant) - Chenover Straße 5 - 67117 - Limburgerhof - DE PATENT AT ISSUE Patent no. Proprietor/s EP3522755 Washtower IP B.V. No SPC details provided Patent no. SPC details SPC ID National Designations No SPC Holders provided Patent SPC National Holders no. ID Designations DECIDING JUDGE Presiding judge Edger Brinkman Judge-rapporteur Edger Brinkman LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English 2 SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS Provisional measures GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER Following the order of 11 September 2025, rendered by this Court in the above-referenced matter, applicants indicated they wish to enforce: (a) the injunctions given in part I.B and I.C of the operative part of the Order; (b) the order to render information in part II of the operative part of the Order; (c) the penalty sums in part IV of the operative part of the Order; (d) the costs award in part V of the operative part of the Order; The Court has received the security deposits as mentioned in the order to the amount of (2x€ 25,000=) € 50,000. This means service and enforcement may proceed. In their reply of 16 September 2025, defendants 2-5 kindly indicated that service may be performed electronically using the email address of the registered representative mentioned above. Hence, electronic service of the final order is to proceed pursuant to R. 276.1 juncto R. 271.1.c RoP and Art. 19.1.b Service Regulation. Defendants 2-5 also indicated they do not require translations into German and/or Polish, so the English original version will suffice. ORDER The Court: - orders the Registry to proceed with electronic service on defendants 2-5 by email to the above-mentioned representative at Henke@bardehle.de, - stipulates that applicants have indicated they wish to enforce: (a) the injunctions given in part I.B and I.C of the operative part of the Order; (b) the order to render information in part II of the operative part of the Order; (c) the penalty sums in part IV of the operative part of the Order; (d) the costs award in part V of the operative part of the Order; ORDER DETAILS Order no. ORD_36945/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: Not provided UPC number: UPC_CFI_479/2025 Action type: Not provided Related proceeding no. Application No.: 25599/2025 Application Type: Application for provisional measures (RoP206) Edger Frank Digitally signed by Edger Frank Brinkman BRINKMAN BRINKMAN Date: 2025.09.17 11:58:42 +02'00' Larissa Donata Digitally signed by Larissa Donata Hageman On behalf of the registry Hageman Date: 2025.09.17 12:10:57 +02'00' 3

Key Holdings

  • Service of judgment ordered via Registry after representatives accepted.
  • Security posted for enforcement of PI.
  • Consent required for electronic service of judgment (Reg EU 2020/1784).

Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Judgment
  • Security for Costs
  • Service

Related Cases

View original decision