UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1141/2025

Oct 13, 2025·EP2805639 · Reel based lacing system

Follow
Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Consumer products · Other consumer goods
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Jun 1, 2026
EPO Opposition
  • GI. DI. MECCANICA S.p.A.2019-01-18
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Samuel GranataLockedLocked
Judge Ingo RinkenLockedLocked
Judge Giorgio CheccacciLockedLocked

At the UPC: Boa Technology Inc. (3 cases)·Zuatu Cycling International d.o.o. (1 case)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-06-01
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application for security for costs under R.158 RoP / Art.69(4) UPCA. The Court found that only the Claimant's own financial situation is relevant, not that of its holding company (CODI), and concluded there was no sufficient basis to find the Claimant lacked means to satisfy a future costs order.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • security for costs under R.158 RoP and Art.69(4) UPCA
    • relevance of holding company financial situation to claimant's means
    • assessment of claimant's financial sufficiency to meet a future costs order
Documents
Show all 109 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Order2026-07-20Not public
Order2026-07-20Not public
Receipt2026-07-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-15Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-07-15Not public
Statement of rejoinder2026-07-15Not public
Receipt2026-07-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-06Not public
Document2026-07-06Not public
Receipt2026-07-06Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Only the Claimant's own financial situation is relevant for the security-for-costs assessment; the financial situation of the holding company CODI is not a party and need not be considered

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art.69(4) UPCA; UPC CoA Order 29 November 2024, UPC_CFI_548/2024 (Aarke v. Sodastream) §21

  • The stock-price drop of CODI was caused by an internal investigation into a separate subsidiary (Lugano Holding Inc.) and the financial analysis cited by Defendants was outdated; the most recent analysis (17 March 2026) showed CODI earned USD 64.3 million in Q4 2025

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art.69(4) UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Defendants' claim that CODI's severe financial state (stock price down 62% in 2025, negative 2026 growth estimates, risk of increased cash extraction from Claimant) gave legitimate concern that a future costs order would be irrecoverable

    RespondentLegal basis: Art.82(2) UPCA; R.158 RoP; UPC CoA Order 18 February 2026, UPC_CoA_890/2025 (Syntorr v. Arthex) §19