UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1382/2025

Oct 31, 2025·EP4240194 Unitary patent · FASTENING DEVICE, HEAD-PROTECTIVE GEAR WITH SUCH A FASTENING DEVICE

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Milan LD
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Other consumer goods
Language
English
First decided
Jun 18, 2026
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.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Milan LDLockedLocked
Judge Pierluigi PerrottiLockedLocked
Judge Alima ZanaLockedLocked
Judge Samuel GranataLockedLocked
Judge Marie-Paule VandebergLockedLocked

At the UPC: Cardo Systems, Ltd. (6 cases)·Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. (4 cases)

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CFI 3257/2026·UPC CoA 111/2026·UPC CFI 1902/2025

3 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 766/2025·UPC CFI 766/2024·UPC CFI 643/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-06-18
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Milan Local Division revoked in its entirety the ex parte provisional measures order of 5 November 2025 that had been granted to Cardo Systems against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited. The court ordered Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in costs to the respondents, directed partial release of the security (EUR 28,000 to respondents, EUR 72,000 returned to Cardo), and ordered the return of seized goods to the respondents.

    Show the legal issues (8)
    • Review of ex parte provisional measures order (R. 212 and R. 197.3 RoP)
    • Scope of ex tunc vs ex nunc assessment on review of provisional measures
    • Right to full defence for respondents in review proceedings
    • Lack of urgency and unreasonable delay
    • Duty of candour / misleading representations in ex parte proceedings
    • Release of security (R. 352.2 RoP and R. 211.5 RoP)
    • Return of seized goods
    • Costs award (R. 211.1(d) RoP and Art. 69 UPCA)
Documents
Show all 124 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Other Documents2026-08-26Not public
Case closed2026-06-19Not public
Final Order2026-06-19Public
Decision2026-06-18Not public
Final Order2026-06-18Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-05-19Not public
Communication2026-05-11Not public
Other Documents2026-04-28Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-04-27Not public
Order2026-04-24Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Review of ex parte injunction must take into account all defences raised by the applicant for review, including arguments on non-infringement and patent invalidity, without limitation from an ex tunc perspective

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 212 and R. 197.3 RoP

  • Ex tunc perspective applies when assessing lack of urgency due to unreasonable delay; only circumstances arising prior to filing the application for provisional measures are relevant for that assessment

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 212 RoP

  • Security paid by Cardo should be partially released in favour of respondents for the amount corresponding to awarded legal costs (EUR 28,000)

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.5 RoP; R. 352.2 RoP

  • Seized goods must be returned to respondents following revocation of provisional measures

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 213.2 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Release of security in favour of Reso Group for reputational damage caused by manner of enforcement (police presence at EICMA fair)

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 352.2 RoP

  • Execution of provisional measures was improper due to use of law enforcement officers

    Respondent