Overview · Filed: May 28, 2025
UPC_CFI_449/2025
Fluid cartridge
Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresDusseldorf LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 5
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 275.2 | alternative service / order of good service | Binding | This justifies considering the steps taken so far as proper service in accordance with R. 275.2 RoP (with regard to the refusal of service due to formal complaints, see: UPC_CFI_330/2024 (LD Mannheim), Order of 31 July 2024 – Panasonic v Xiaomi). |
| 275.2 | good service deemed sufficient basis for default PI order | Binding | If the Court has deemed the steps taken so far to be sufficient for proper service (R. 275.2 RoP) of the application for provisional measures, including a R. 209.1(a) RoP order, which invites the Defendant to lodge an Objection within a certain ti... |
| 209.1 | invitation to lodge an objection in PI proceedings | Binding | including a R. 209.1(a) RoP order, which invites the Defendant to lodge an Objection within a certain time period, and if the Defendant does not file an Objection within the time period set by the Court |
| 206 | application for provisional measures procedure | Binding | SUBJECT: R. 206 RoP – Application for provisional measures |
| 275.2 | order of good service confirmed | Binding | the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered on 16 October 2025 that the steps already taken to bring the application for provisional measures in the proceedings UPC_CFI_449/2025 to the attention of Defendant 1. constitute good service pursuant to R. 275... |
UPC (CFI) · 3
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CFI_330/2024 | good service where Chinese authorities refuse service | Persuasive | This justifies considering the steps taken so far as proper service in accordance with R. 275.2 RoP (with regard to the refusal of service due to formal complaints, see: UPC_CFI_330/2024 (LD Mannheim), Order of 31 July 2024 – Panasonic v Xiaomi). |
| UPC_CFI_213/2025 | default PI order where defendant failed to lodge objection after good service | Binding | (follow-up to UPC_CFI_213/2025 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 10 July 2025, headnote 1 and mn. 213 - 214 – Aesculap v Shanghai International Holding and Order of 3 September 2025, headnote – Hewlett-Packard v Rentmeister). |
| UPC_CFI_449/2025 | default PI order where defendant failed to lodge objection after good service | Binding | (follow-up to UPC_CFI_213/2025 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 10 July 2025, headnote 1 and mn. 213 - 214 – Aesculap v Shanghai International Holding and Order of 3 September 2025, headnote – Hewlett-Packard v Rentmeister). |
courtName.other · 2
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 15(2) Hague Convention | six-month period for service not absolute in urgent PI proceedings | Distinguished | Art. 15(2) of the Hague Convention does not preclude this. Insofar as this provision stipulates as one condition to be fulfilled that a period of time of not less than six months has elapsed since the date of the transmission of the document, this... |
| Art. 15(3) Hague Convention | Hague Convention recognises urgency exception for provisional measures | Background | Art. 15(3) of the Hague Convention shows that the Convention also recognises this issue by allowing the order of provisional measures in urgent cases, despite the formal service requirements. |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
| Cited in | Date | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CFI_515/2025 Dusseldorf LD | Nov 11, 2025 | alternative service applicable to PI proceedings | Binding | must apply all the more so for the Defendant's information about the application for provisional measures and its invitation to lodge an objection (R. 209.1(a) RoP; UPC_CFI_449/2025 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 16 October 2025, mn. 12 – HP v Zhuhai). |
| UPC_CFI_515/2025 Dusseldorf LD | Nov 11, 2025 | good service under R. 275.2 RoP where Chinese authorities failed to serve | Binding | it is justified to consider the steps taken so far as proper service in accordance with R. 275.2 RoP (continuation of UPC_CFI_449/2025 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 16 October 2025, mn. 24 – HP v Zhuhai; with regard to the refusal of service due to f |
| UPC_CFI_449/2025 Dusseldorf LD | Nov 28, 2025 | default PI order where defendant failed to lodge objection after good service | Binding | (follow-up to UPC_CFI_213/2025 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 10 July 2025, headnote 1 and mn. 213 - 214 – Aesculap v Shanghai International Holding and Order of 3 September 2025, headnote – Hewlett-Packard v Rentmeister). |