UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Jun 22, 2023

UPC_CFI_177/2023

Combination structure of bicycle frame and motor hub

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresDusseldorf LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

myStromer AG obtained an ex parte preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Revolt Zycling AG prohibiting exhibition and offering of Revolt's electric bicycle hub combination structure at the Eurobike 2023 trade fair, based on EP 2546134 B1. The court found preponderant likelihood of infringement and validity, and irreparable harm from loss of trade fair sales contacts. myStromer's subsequent application to rectify the order to add Austria to the territorial scope was refused because the omission was not a manifest error — the underlying application had only addressed Germany, Netherlands, France, and Italy.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Prima facie infringement of EP 2546134 by Revolt Zycling's combination structure of bicycle frame and motor hub exhibited at Eurobike 2023

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA

    Note: No opposition had been filed against the patent and no revocation action was pending; Revolt presented no relevant prior art in its protective letter.

  • Urgency established: delay would cause irreparable harm as Eurobike 2023 would enable Revolt to acquire customers and market share at patentee's expense

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 212.1 RoP

    Note: Products are directly substitutable competing products; trade fair market contacts are not recoverable in damages.

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

  • Rectification of injunction order to include Austria in the territorial scope

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 353 RoP

    Reason: The original order was based on the subsidiary request covering Germany, Netherlands, France and Italy only; Austria was not mentioned in the subsidiary request or infringement analysis; omission was not a manifest error under Rule 353 RoP but reflected the court's actual decision.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
urgency for provisional measures established where delay would cause irreparable harm including loss of trade fair market contactsFor unitary patent enforcement, enforcement before UPC is not equivalent to piecemeal national enforcement and relevance of delay runs from when UPC enforcement became possiblePreponderant likelihood of validity sufficient for provisional measures; absence of opposition or revocation action supports thisRectification under Rule 353 RoP only available for manifest errors in expression of the court's actual will, not to expand the scope of the original order

Browse other cases on this principle.