UPC_CFI_449/2025

Fluid cartridge

Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenDusseldorf LDProvisional measuresCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Hewlett-Packard sought and obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Chinese manufacturer Zhuhai ouguan for infringement of two ink-cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). The case established important procedural principles on deemed service under R. 275.2 RoP where the Hague Convention failed due to the defendant being untraceable, and on proceeding to a substantive PI order where the defendant, having been given the opportunity to object, failed to respond.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

Service on Chinese defendant Zhuhai ouguan via Hague Convention having failed, steps already taken constitute good service under R. 275.2 RoP
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 275.2 RoP; Art. 15(3) Hague Convention
Hinweis: Court held that where Chinese authorities returned documents without effecting service and the applicant credibly demonstrated the address was correct, deemed service was appropriate; renewed attempt at formal service incompatible with urgency of PI proceedings.
Defendant's failure to file an objection after being invited to do so (R. 209.1(a)) entitles Court to decide PI application on applicant's submissions alone
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 209.1(a) RoP; R. 275.2 RoP
Hinweis: Following the line from UPC_CFI_213/2025 (Aesculap) and the 3 September 2025 order in same case, the Court issued a regular PI order rather than a default decision.
HP's ink cartridges (Patents A and B) infringed by Zhuhai ouguan's devices
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: EP 2 826 630 B1; EP 3 530 469 B1
Hinweis: Preliminary injunction granted for both patents against Defendant 1 in specified UPC territories; penalty up to EUR 250,000 per day.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Application dismissed in all other aspects against Defendant 1
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 206 RoP
Begründung: Certain aspects of the provisional measures application did not meet the legal requirements; exact grounds not detailed in the available excerpt.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

deemed good service under R. 275.2 RoP where Hague Convention service fails Art. 15(2) Hague Convention six-month period inapplicable without restriction in PI proceedings decision on PI application based on applicant's submissions alone where defendant fails to object effective judicial protection requires alternative service options where formal service is futile PI proceedings: regular order rather than default decision where defendant was given opportunity to respond

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The excerpt recites the full claim text of EP 3 530 469 B1 (ink cartridge with specific interface, guide, latch, and electrical circuit arrangement) as the basis for the injunction order, but no disputed claim terms or construction arguments are discussed.