UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Nov 5, 2025

UPC_CFI_1443/2025

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresHamburg LDProvisional measures—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
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.