UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1443/2025

Nov 5, 2025·EP2131940 · DEVICE FOR THE TREATMENT OF WATER, IN PARTICULAR A FILTER DEVICE, AND CARTRIDGE

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Hamburg LD
Judges
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Chemical engineering
Language
German
First decided
Nov 6, 2025
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
Hamburg LDLockedLocked
Judge Sabine KlepschLockedLocked
Judge Stefan SchillingLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked

At the UPC: Brita SE (7 cases)·Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. (1 case)

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

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 1881/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Hamburg LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2025-11-06
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: Hamburg Local Division granted ex parte provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Fileder Filter Systems Sp. z o.o. (Poland) for infringement of Brita SE's EP 2 131 940 B1 (water filter device with locking shaft). The injunction covers Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and Slovenia. Security of EUR 50,000 and provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 34,700 ordered.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Provisional measures ex parte
    • Water filter patent infringement
    • Security for claimant (R. 211.5 RoP)
    • Multi-country injunction
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2025-12-17Not public
Order2025-12-17Not public
Order2025-12-17Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-16Not public
Application document Claimant2025-12-16Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-12-16Not public
Receipt2025-12-16Not public
Publication2025-11-26Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-12Not public
Other document Claimant2025-11-12Not public
Other document Claimant2025-11-12Not public
Receipt2025-11-12Not public
Communication2025-11-11Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-11Not public
Other document Claimant2025-11-11Not public
Receipt2025-11-11Not public
Communication2025-11-10Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-10Not public
Other document Claimant2025-11-10Not public
Receipt2025-11-10Not public
Order2025-11-06Not public
Order2025-11-06Public
Cover sheet2025-11-05Not public
Fee2025-11-05Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-05Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-05Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-05Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-05Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-05Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-05Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-05Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-05Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-05Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-05Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-05Not public
Application for provisional measures2025-11-05Not public
Proof of payment2025-11-05Not public
Receipt2025-11-05Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Brita SE obtained an ex parte preliminary injunction from the Hamburg Local Division against Polish respondent Fileder Filter Systems for infringement of EP 2 131 940 B1 protecting a water filter device with a locking shaft mechanism. The injunction covers 14 UPC contracting states, requires delivery-up of infringing products, and mandates disclosure of distribution channels; Brita must provide EUR 50,000 security and received EUR 34,700 in provisional cost reimbursement.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Respondent infringes EP 2 131 940 B1 by offering and selling water filter devices with a locking shaft mechanism

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 206 RoP

    Note: Hamburg Local Division found infringement sufficiently demonstrated for ex parte PI purposes; legal validity of the patent was found sufficiently secure.

  • Security of EUR 50,000 should be ordered given ex parte nature of the proceedings

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.5 VerfO

    Note: Court ordered EUR 50,000 security as standard for ex parte PIs given inherent uncertainty, even though the infringement was clear and validity appeared secure.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

No rejected arguments captured.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Ex parte provisional measures require security for potential damages if later revoked (R. 211.5 VerfO)Even clear infringement and secure validity do not in principle justify dispensing with a security order in ex parte PI proceedingsProvisional cost reimbursement may be ordered alongside ex parte PI (Art. 60(1) UPCA; R. 211.1(c) VerfO)

Browse other cases on this principle.