UPC_CFI_692/2026 – beMatrix v Yaham

Expert Commentary

Preliminary injunction Facts 1. The claimant filed a request for a preliminary injunction (“PI”) with respect to EP 3 757 442 for a “Display Module for a temporary exhibition stand”. 2. Service of the Chinese defendant takes place at the EuroShop exhibition in Düsseldorf. 3. The allegedly infringing device is exhibited at the EuroShop exhibition. 4. The defendant refused to remove the infringing device. 5. The claimant asks for an ex parte PI. The Court 1. The Court concludes that it is more likely than not that claimant is entitled to initiate proceedings and that the patent is valid and infringed. 2. The Court concludes that the claimant only became aware of the infringement in Spain (where there is no patent) from 3 to 6 February 2026, and there is urgency as the exhibition ends on 26 February 2026. 3. There is also necessity as this trade fair is, according to the applicant, one of the central and most influential events. 4. The order to provide information is rejected, as in a ex parte this may be disproportionate. 5. The PI is granted. 6. The defendant is ordered to deliver the devices with an infringing display module to a bailiff for the purpose of safekeeping until a decision between the parties about a claim for destruction. 7. The claimant has to provide security within 14 days in the amount of € 500.000. Comment 1. The Court states that in ex parte proceedings it can only award interim costs. That seems correct (see Court of Appeal in Barco v Yealink), because even if in the application for an ex parte, PI costs are claimed, the other party cannot comment. However, it does not make a substantial material difference, as a successful ex parte has to be followed by main proceedings (absent settlement) and if unsuccessful defendant (who did not know about the ex parte application) does not have costs. 2. The Court is right to decide that a request for information in ex parte PI proceedings is disproportionate. 3. In my opinion, ex parte proceedings should be reserved for extreme urgency. In this case, there had already been discussion in past years between the parties with respect to other models. These discussions were, I assume, about possible infringement. The applicant states that it became aware of the newest infringing product in Spain on 3 February, and the fact that this was also offered by a German company. They state that the Düsseldorf exhibition is the most important exhibition. I do not see why, if the applicants would have acted diligently, a PI hearing inter partes could not have taken place one or two days prior to the exhibition.

Full Decision Text

Düsseldorf Local Division UPC_CFI_692/2026 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 February 2026 EP 3 757 442 B1 **APPLICANT:** beMatrix NV., represented by its Managing Directors, Mr. Stefaan Decroos and Mr. Edwin Van der Vennet, Wijnendalestraat 174 8800 Roeselare, Belgium Represented by: Attorney at law Miriam Kiefer LL.M., Attorney at law Arne-Steffen Kamps, Attorney at law Svenja Ullmann, Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Bahnstraße 16, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany Electronic address for service: kiefer@katheraugenstein.com in cooperation with: Attorney at law Véronique Pede, Gevers IP Law, Amelia Earhartlaan 19, 9051 Gent, Belgium Belgian and European Patent Attorney Bastian Piepers, Ipsilon Belgium, Bellevue 5/501, 9050 Gent-Ledeberg, Belgium **DEFENDANT:** Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd., represented by its Executive Director Mr. Keith Mok, 118 Youngfu Road, Qiaotou Community, Fuhai Subdistrict, Bao'an District, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province 518103, People's Republic of China Address from 22 to 26 February 2026: Messe “EuroShop”, Messe Düsseldorf, Stockumer Kirchstr. 61, 40474 Düsseldorf, Hall 1, booth B 22 **PATENT IN SUIT:** EUROPEAN PATENT NO 3 757 442 B1 **PANEL/DIVISION:** Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf **DECIDING JUDGES:** This order was issued by legally qualified Judge Dr Thom on behalf of Presiding Judge Thomas and acting as judge-rapporteur, legally qualified Judge Dr Schumacher and legally qualified Judge Lopes. **LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:** English **SUBJECT:** R. 209.1, 212 RoP – Application for provisional measures **SUMMARY OF THE FACTS:** 1. By way of an application for provisional measures, the Applicant seeks a preliminary injunction and further provisional measures against the Defendant in respect of an alleged infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1 (hereinafter: the patent in suit). 2. The Applicant is the sole proprietor of the patent in suit. It is originally established in the legal form of a BVBA (Besloten Vennotschap met Beperkte Aansprakelijkheid/Private limited company with limited liability) and now adapted the legal form of an NV (Naamloze Vennootschap/Public Limited Company). The patent in suit was filed on 15 December 2017 under the application number 20186184.6. It claims the priority of CN 201621424986 U (23 December 2016). The date of publication and mention of the grant of the patent is 2 March 2022. Currently the patent in suit is in force and no opposition is pending. 3. The patent in suit is titled “Display Module for a temporary exhibition stand”. Its claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A display module (10) for a modular temporary exhibition stand comprising a plurality of frame modules (5) serving as basic units, wherein the display module (10) comprises LED screens (1), a display frame (2) and a signal receiver (3), wherein the display frame (2) comprises a front face, a first lateral face, a second lateral face, a third lateral face and a fourth lateral face, wherein the first lateral face is connected with the second and the fourth lateral face, the second lateral face is connected with the first and the third lateral face, the third lateral face is connected with the second and fourth lateral face and the fourth lateral face is connected with the first and the third lateral face, and fixing surfaces (9) are arranged on the display frame (2), wherein a first set installation holes (4) is formed in the lateral faces and a second set installation holes (91) is formed in the fixing surfaces (9), wherein panels of LED screens (1) are arranged on the front face of the display frame (2) and the LED screens (1) are connected with the signal receiver (3), wherein: at least one installation hole of the first (4) or second set of installation holes (91) is provided, wherein the center of gravity defined by the surface of this installation hole, in particular a circle, is formed at a distance x to at least one edge of the display frame (2), and characterized in that, the distance x = 31 + 62n with x in millimeters and wherein n is part of the natural numbers. 4. Claim 13 reads as follows: 13. Modules for a modular temporary exhibition stand, comprising: - the display module (10) according to any of the preceding claims, and - a frame module (5) adapted to serve as a basic unit for the modular temporary exhibition stand and provided with installation holes, wherein the one or more installation holes of the first (4) or second (91) set installation holes of the display module (10) are compatible with the installation holes of the frame module (5), such that the display module (10) and the frame module (5) can be connected by one or more connectors through the one or more installation holes of the first (4) or second (91) set installation holes of the display module (10) and the installation holes of the frame module (5). 5. Claim 14 reads as follows: 14. A modular temporary exhibition stand comprising: - one or more frame modules (5) serving as basic units for the modular temporary exhibition stand and provided with installation holes, - one or more display modules (10) according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the installation holes of the first (4) or second (91) set installation holes of the display modules (10) are aligned with the installation holes of the frame modules (5), and wherein the display modules (10) and the frame modules are merged and assembled to each other by connectors through installation holes of the first or second (91) set of installation holes (4) of the display modules (10) and the installation holes of the frame modules (5). 6. The application is directed against the product “Sytaq RA” (hereinafter: attacked embodiment), which is a modular system with LED screens on which content can be displayed. The slightly reduced picture below is taken from the Application (para. 59), showing the attacked embodiment on the Defendant's website. 7. Defendant also sells the attacked embodiment through the LEDitgo Videowall Germany GmbH who have a product sheet of another example of the attacked embodiment (Sytaq RA 129ix) on their website in German available. The slightly reduced picture is taken from the Application (para 66). 8. In 2023 and 2025, both parties were already in contact regarding potential infringement of the patent in suit by the “RE series” which are products of an earlier generation, concerning different technical configurations. 9. Applicant first became aware of the attacked embodiment being the new Sytaq RA product at the ISE 2026 trade fair in Barcelona from 3 to 6 February 2026, where Defendant advertised and exhibited the attacked embodiment. In Spain the patent in suit is not in force. The Applicant initiated a technical assessment to analyse the infringement situation and also became aware of the Defendant's German Distributor LEDItgo Videowall Germany GmbH. 10. Currently, Defendant is exhibiting the attacked embodiment at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf (hereinafter: trade fair) at its stand (exhibit KAP 15). The attacked embodiment is visible to visitors. 11. Employees of the Applicant talked to Defendant's CEO Mr Keith Mok about the infringement situation on 22 February 2026, but he showed no interest in cooperating (exhibit KAP 15). In this context, Applicant also handed out a letter of Applicant's representatives, addressed to the Applicant and summarizing their work on an application for provisional measures (exhibit KAP 16). The Defendant did not react and did not refrain from exhibiting the attacked embodiment. **INDICATION OF THE PARTIES REQUESTS:** 12. The Applicant requests – without hearing the Defendant – the following: I. The Respondent is ordered to cease and desist 1. to offer, place on the market or import or possess for these purposes in Belgium, Germany, France, The Netherlands and Sweden A display module for a modular temporary exhibition stand comprising a plurality of frame modules serving as basic units, wherein the display module comprises LED screens, a display frame and a signal receiver, wherein the display frame comprises a front face, a first lateral face, a second lateral face, a third lateral face and a fourth lateral face, wherein the first lateral face is connected with the second and the fourth lateral face, the second lateral face is connected with the first and the third lateral face, the third lateral face is connected with the second and fourth lateral face and the fourth lateral face is connected with the first and the third lateral face, and fixing surfaces are arranged on the display frame, wherein a first set installation holes is formed in the lateral faces and a second set installation holes is formed in the fixing surfaces, wherein panels of LED screens are arranged on the front face of the display frame and the LED screens are connected with the signal receiver, wherein: at least one installation hole of the first or second set of installation holes is provided, wherein the center of gravity defined by the surface of this installation hole, in particular a circle, is formed at a distance x to at least one edge of the display frame, and characterized in that, the distance x = 31 + 62n with x in millimeters and wherein n is part of the natural numbers. (direct infringement claim 1) 2. to offer, place on the market or import or possess for these purposes in Belgium, Germany, France, The Netherlands and Sweden Modules for a modular temporary exhibition stand, comprising: the display module according to 1., and a frame module) adapted to serve as a basic unit for the modular temporary exhibition stand and provided with installation holes, wherein the one or more installation holes of the first or second set installation holes of the display module are compatible with the installation holes of the frame module, such that the display module and the frame module can be connected by one or more connectors through the one or more installation holes of the first or second set installation holes of the display module and the installation holes of the frame module. (direct infringement claim 13) 3. to offer, place on the market or import or possess for these purposes in Belgium, Germany, France, The Netherlands and Sweden A modular temporary exhibition stand comprising: one or more frame modules serving as basic units for the modular temporary exhibition stand and provided with installation holes, one or more display modules according to 1., wherein the installation holes of the first or second set installation holes of the display modules are aligned with the installation holes of the frame modules, and wherein the display modules and the frame modules are merged and assembled to each other by connectors through installation holes of the first or second set of installation holes of the display modules and the installation holes of the frame modules. (direct infringement claim 14) II. For each individual infringement of the above injunction, the Respondent shall pay to the court a (possibly repeated) penalty payment of up to EUR 50,000.00 per offer and/or sale of the attacked modules (depending on the amount of square meters that were offered/sold) and/or, in the case of continuous actions such as offers on the Internet, up to EUR 50,000.00 per day. III. The Respondent is further ordered to deliver the devices with a display module designated in section I. to a bailiff for the purpose of safekeeping, which shall continue until a legally binding decision has been made between the parties regarding the existence of a claim for destruction or a mutually agreed settlement has been reached. IV. The Respondent is further ordered to provide the Applicant, within three (3) weeks of service of this order, with information in writing and in electronic form that can be evaluated using a computer, in a list structured for each month of a calendar year and according to patent-infringing products, starting from 2 March 2022, on the products referred to in section I, on 1. the origin and distribution channels of the products referred to in No. I, stating a) the names and addresses of the manufacturers, suppliers and other previous owners b) the names and addresses of the commercial customers and the points of sale for which the products were intended; 2. the identity of all third parties involved in the manufacture and distribution of the products referred to in No. I. V. The Respondent is ordered to, 1. pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings; 2. pay the Applicant an interim award of EUR 33,400.00. VI. The orders are 1. effective and enforceable immediately; alternatively to 1. 2. immediately effective and enforceable if the Applicant has provided security in favour of the Respondent by way of a guarantee or deposit. VII. In the event that the Respondent fails to respond or fails to take other ordered procedural steps, we request that a decision by default be issued against the Respondent in accordance with R. 355 RoP. **GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER:** **4. Validity** 19. The Court is of the opinion that it is not more likely than not that the patent in suit is not valid. The patent in suit has been in force for four years and has not been challenged. The Applicant also presented a validity assessment by their cooperating patent attorney (exhibit KAP 17) pointing out the differences between the corresponding, revoked Chinese utility model CN 206282554 and the patent in suit. At this moment, no reasons for invalidity are apparent for the Court. **II. Balance of interests** 20. The weighing of the parties' interests in the present case is in favour of the Applicant. **1. General principles** 21. Pursuant to Art. 62(2) UPCA and R. 211.3 RoP, the Court shall in the exercise of its discretion weigh up the interests of the parties and, in particular, take into account the potential harm for either of the parties resulting from the granting or the refusal of the injunction. The Court must also take the time factor into account. In particular, it must consider whether to await proceedings on the merits, or whether provisional measures are necessary (UPC CoA 540/2024, Order of 24 February 2025, mn. 19 – Biolitec vLight Guide; UPC CoA 768/2024, Order of 30 April 2025 – Insulet Corporation vEOFLow; UPC CFI 213/2025 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 10 July 2025, mn. 104 – Aesculap v. Shanghai International Holding). Provisional measures are, for example, necessary, if a delay would cause irreparable damage to the patent proprietor. However, such damage is not a necessary prerequisite for ordering provisional measures (UPC CoA 182/2024, Order of 25 September 2024, mn. 237 – Mammut vOrtovox; UPC CoA 540/2024, Order of 24 February 2025, mn. 21 – Biolitec vLight Guide; UPC CoA 768/2024, Order of 30 April 2025, mn. 103 – Insulet Corporation vEOFlow; UPC CFI 213/2025 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 10 July 2025, mn. 105 – Aesculap v. Shanghai International Holding). The need for provisional measures may arise from direct competition between the attacked embodiment and the patent proprietor's product (UPC CoA 540/2024, Order of 24 February 2025, mn. 26 – Biolitec vLight Guide). When weighing up the interests, the Court takes into account any unreasonable delay in applying for provisional measures, as set out in R. 211.4 RoP. **2. Case at hand** **a) Unreasonable delay/Urgency** 22. Based on the facts and arguments presented by the Applicant, there is no unreasonable delay associated with Applicant's applying for provisional measures. The Applicant has substantially demonstrated that it firstly became aware of the attacked embodiment at the ISE 2026 trade fair in Barcelona from 3 to 6 February 2026 and afterwards of the Defendant's German Distributor's website (see exhibits KAP 15, KAP 18). Applying for provisional measures within the same month is not a sign of hesitation. 23. Regarding the factor of urgency (R. 209.2(b) RoP), the attacked embodiment is being exhibited at a trade fair that ends on 26 February 2026, so it must be prohibited immediately. **b) Necessity of provisional measures** 24. The preliminary measures are also necessary. The Applicant puts forward that the trade fair is one of the central and most influential events in the European retail and exhibition construction industry where flagship products are presented to acquire new customers, to enter distribution agreements and securing substantial commercial projects. The parties are direct competitors and the attacked embodiment constitutes a direct competitive product which is a direct challenge to the Applicant's core business. Applicant argues that awaiting the main proceedings would expose itself to significant competitive harm during a commercially decisive period. In contrast, Defendant is part of a larger international group with broader business activities and a more global market presence than the Applicant. The temporary prohibition of a single product is a kind of a commercial disadvantage and does not cause irreparable damage to the Defendant. **c) Ex parte/without hearing** 25. Pursuant to R. 212.1 RoP the Court orders the provisional measures without hearing the Defendant as this would cause irreparable harm to the Applicant in most probably delaying an order until after the trade fair has been concluded. The Applicant has demonstrated that orders are typically initiated or concluded during or immediately after the fair. According to the Applicant, once the attacked embodiment is publicly promoted to a specialised international audience, commercial momentum is created and customer interest is generated, and the product is positioned in the relevant market. Additionally, according to Applicant's demonstrated facts and arguments, the Defendant is already aware of the announced application and is familiar with the patent in suit. The purpose of being heard has therefore already been achieved. **III. Preliminary measures** 26. In exercising its discretion (R. 209.2 RoP), the Court considers the grant of a preliminary injunction based on claims 1, 13 and 14 against the Defendant to be appropriate and justified (Art. 62(1), 25(a) UPCA). Only a preliminary injunction takes into account the Applicant's interest in the effective enforcement of the patent in suit. 27. The order to provide information must be rejected. In an ex-parte situation the request for information may be disproportionate as such, as it goes beyond merely maintaining the status quo. Besides that, the Applicant fails to substantiate its substantial interest in the information right now, as it does not demonstrate why it cannot await proceedings on the merits in this regard. 28. The order to seizure the attacked embodiments is based on R. 211.1 (b) RoP. **IV. Penalty Payments** 29. Pursuant to R.354.3 RoP the Court may provide penalty payments in its order, which also applies to applications for provisional measures (UPC CoA 699/2025, Order of 14 October 2025, mn. 36 and 37, Kodak v. Fujifilm). Applicant's requested warning does not raise any concerns. **V. Enforcement security** 30. Where appropriate, the enforcement of a decision may, pursuant to Art. 82(2) UPCA, be subject to the provision of security or an equivalent assurance to ensure compensation for any damage suffered, in particular in the case of injunctions. For provisional measures, this is reflected in R. 211.5 RoP, first sentence, which states that the Court may order the applicant to provide adequate security for appropriate compensation for any injury likely to be caused to the defendant which the applicant may be liable to bear in the event that the Court revokes the order for provisional measures. Furthermore, according to R. 352.1 RoP, decisions and orders may be subject to the rendering of a security (whether by deposit or bank guarantee or otherwise) by a party to the other party for legal costs and other expenses and compensation for any damage incurred or likely to be incurred by the other party if the decisions and orders are enforced and subsequently revoked. If provisional measures are ordered without the defendant having been heard, the Court shall order the applicant to provide appropriate security, unless there are special circumstances that preclude this (R. 213.2 RoP, second sentence). While security is therefore normally ordered in ex-parte situations, the Court has a discretion when the Defendant has been heard (inter partes, see R. 211.5 RoP, first sentence, „may“, UPC CoA 523/2024, Order of 3 March 2025, mn. 110 - 113 – Sumi Agro vSyngenta; UPC CFI 213/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 10 July 2025, mn. 131 – Aesculap v. Shanghai International Holding; UPC CFI 712/2025 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 5 December 2025, mn. 402 – Roche vMenarini). 31. Based on these principles, the Court orders a security of costs at the case at hand. At the time of issuing this order, it is difficult for the Court to estimate the amount of possible enforcement damages. Against this background, the security set is based on the value in dispute as stated by the Applicant. Even if the value in dispute does not necessarily correspond to the risk of damage, it does at least provide an indication of the economic significance that the Applicant attaches to the matter. 32. To address the mentioned time factor of the ongoing trade fair, the Court has granted a time period until which the security must be provided. **4. Costs** 33. The Rules of Procedure only provide for a decision on costs in the main proceedings (see Rule 118.5 RoP), but not in proceedings for provisional measures. 34. Insofar as, according to the specifications of the Court of Appeal, a decision on costs must also be made in proceedings for the ordering of provisional measures, this expressly applies only to inter partes orders (UPC CoA 523/2024, order of March 3, 2025, para. 117 – Sumi Agro v. Syngenta). **5. Interim award of costs** 35. Pursuant to Art 69 UPCA in connection with R. 150.2 and R. 211.1(d) RoP, the Applicant can request an interim award of costs. An interim award of costs may also be ordered in proceedings for provisional measures. In proceedings for provisional measures, there will often be reasons to allow the successful party an interim award of costs. This allows the successful party to recover, on an interim basis, at least part of the costs incurred from the unsuccessful party, pending the subsequent start and final conclusion of separate proceedings for cost decision as set out in R. 150 et seq RoP (UPC CoA 317/202, Order of 28 November 2025, headnotes: 8-9 and mn. 97 - 99 - Barco v. Yealink). 36. As the Applicant has calculated its provisional costs in accordance with the German RVG, and as the claimed costs remain below the ceiling, the requested amount is issued as interim award of costs. **ORDER** I. The Applicant is ordered to cease and desist 1. to offer, place on the market or import or store for these purposes in Belgium, Germany, France, The Netherlands and Sweden a display module for a modular temporary exhibition stand comprising a plurality of frame modules serving as basic units, wherein the display module comprises LED screens, a display frame and a signal receiver, wherein the display frame comprises a front face, a first lateral face, a second lateral face, a third lateral face and a fourth lateral face, wherein the first lateral face is connected with the second and the fourth lateral face, the second lateral face is connected with the first and the third lateral face, the third lateral face is connected with the second and fourth lateral face and the fourth lateral face is connected with the first and the third lateral face, and fixing surfaces are arranged on the display frame, wherein a first set installation holes is formed in the lateral faces and a second set installation holes is formed in the fixing surfaces, wherein panels of LED screens are arranged on the front face of the display frame and the LED screens are connected with the signal receiver, wherein: at least one installation hole of the first or second set of installation holes is provided, wherein the center of gravity defined by the surface of this installation hole, in particular a circle, is formed at a distance x to at least one edge of the display frame, and characterized in that, the distance x = 31 + 62n with x in millimeters and wherein n is part of the natural numbers; 2. to offer, place on the market or import or store for these purposes in Belgium, Germany, France, The Netherlands and Sweden modules for a modular temporary exhibition stand, comprising: the display module according to 1., and a frame module) adapted to serve as a basic unit for the modular temporary exhibition stand and provided with installation holes, wherein the one or more installation holes of the first or second set installation holes of the display module are compatible with the installation holes of the frame module, such that the display module and the frame module can be connected by one or more connectors through the one or more installation holes of the first or second set installation holes of the display module and the installation holes of the frame module; 3. to offer, place on the market or import or store for these purposes in Belgium, Germany, France, The Netherlands and Sweden a modular temporary exhibition stand comprising: one or more frame modules serving as basic units for the modular temporary exhibition stand and provided with installation holes, one or more display modules according to 1., wherein the installation holes of the first or second set installation holes of the display modules are aligned with the installation holes of the frame modules, and wherein the display modules and the frame modules are merged and assembled to each other by connectors through installation holes of the first or second set of installation holes of the display modules and the installation holes of the frame modules. II. For each individual infringement of the above injunction, the Defendant shall pay to the court a (possibly repeated) penalty payment of up to EUR 50,000.00 per offer and/or sale of the attacked modules (depending on the amount of square meters that were offered/sold) and/or, in the case of continuous actions such as offers on the Internet, up to EUR 50,000.00 per day. III. The Defendant is further ordered to deliver the devices with a display module designated in section I. to a bailiff for the purpose of safekeeping, which shall continue until a legally binding decision has been made between the parties regarding the existence of a claim for destruction or a mutually agreed settlement has been reached. IV. The Defendant is further ordered to pay the Applicant an interim award of EUR 33,400.00. V. The order is effective and enforceable if the Applicant provides security in form of a deposit or bank guarantee in the amount of EUR 500,000.00 in favour of the Defendant within 14 days of service of this order. If the Applicant fails to comply with this order within the specified period, enforceability shall be suspended until the security has been provided in full. VI. In all other respects, the application for provisional measures is dismissed. **INFORMATION ON SERVICE:** This order shall be served in person at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf by the Applicant's legal representatives. They must also provide a copy of the application for this order, along with any supporting evidence and documents on which it is based (R. 212.2, 276.1 RoP). **NOTE THAT THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS MUST BE INITIATED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING TIME LIMITS:** If the main proceedings are not initiated within 31 calendar days or 20 working days (whichever is longer) of the date of service on the Defendant, the Court may, at the Defendant's request, revoke or otherwise cease the present order to have effect (Art. 62(5), 60(8) UPCA, R. 213.1 RoP). Düsseldorf on 25 February 2026 **NAMES AND SIGNATURES:** Legally qualified Judge Dr Thom Legally qualified Judge Dr Schumacher Legally qualified Judge Lopes For the sub-registrar **INFORMATION ON ENFORCEMENT (ART. 82 UPCA, ART. 37(2) UPCS, R. 118.8, 158.2, 354, 355.4 ROP):** An authentic copy of the enforceable order will be issued by the Deputy-Registrar upon request of the enforcing party, R. 69 RegR. **INFORMATION ON THE RIGHT TO REVIEW:** The Defendant may request a review of this order within 30 days of its execution (Art. 62(5), 60(6) UPCA; R. 212(3), 197(3) RoP). **INFORMATION ON APPEAL:** A party adversely affected may bring an appeal against the present order within 15 days of service of this order (Art. 73(2)(a), 62 UPCA, R. 220.1(c), 224.2(b) RoP). --- **RECTIFICATION ORDER** Düsseldorf Local Division UPC_CFI_692/2026 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 February 2026 EP 3 757 442 B1 **SUBJECT:** R. 353 RoP – rectification **GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER:** Pursuant to R. 353 RoP, the Court may on its own motion or on application by a party rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious slips in the order. The order contains a clear clerical error regarding paragraph I. (preliminary injunction). It names obviously the wrong party. **ORDER** The Court rectifies paragraph I. of the order of provisional measures dated 25 February 2026. It reads correctly instead of “the Applicant is ordered to cease and desist [...]” “the Defendant is ordered to cease and desist [...]”. Düsseldorf on 25 February 2026 **NAMES AND SIGNATURES:** Legally qualified Judge Dr Thom Legally qualified Judge Dr Schumacher Legally qualified Judge Lopes

Key Holdings

• Ex parte preliminary injunctions can be granted for extreme urgency, especially at trade fairs.
• Orders for information in ex parte preliminary injunction proceedings may be disproportionate.
• Security for costs is required for granted preliminary injunctions.
• Interim costs are typically awarded in ex parte proceedings, as the other party cannot comment.

Tags

• Preliminary Injunction
• Ex Parte
• Urgency
• Costs
• Security for Costs
• Trade Fair

Related Cases

• UPC CFI 463/2023 – 10x Genomics, Inc. v Curio Bioscience Inc.
• UPC_CFI_1325/2025 – Van Loon v Inverquark
• UPC_CFI_115/2024; UPC_CFI_377/2024 – Hartman v Omni-Pac
• UPC_CFI_181/2025_July23 – Qiagen v bioMérieux
• UPC_CFI_315/2024 – Labrador v bioMérieux