UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: May 28, 2025

UPC_CFI_449/2025

Fluid cartridge

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresDusseldorf LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Hewlett-Packard sought and obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Chinese manufacturer Zhuhai ouguan for infringement of two ink-cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). The case established important procedural principles on deemed service under R. 275.2 RoP where the Hague Convention failed due to the defendant being untraceable, and on proceeding to a substantive PI order where the defendant, having been given the opportunity to object, failed to respond.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Service on Chinese defendant Zhuhai ouguan via Hague Convention having failed, steps already taken constitute good service under R. 275.2 RoP

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 275.2 RoP; Art. 15(3) Hague Convention

    Note: Court held that where Chinese authorities returned documents without effecting service and the applicant credibly demonstrated the address was correct, deemed service was appropriate; renewed attempt at formal service incompatible with urgency of PI proceedings.

  • Defendant's failure to file an objection after being invited to do so (R. 209.1(a)) entitles Court to decide PI application on applicant's submissions alone

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 209.1(a) RoP; R. 275.2 RoP

    Note: Following the line from UPC_CFI_213/2025 (Aesculap) and the 3 September 2025 order in same case, the Court issued a regular PI order rather than a default decision.

  • HP's ink cartridges (Patents A and B) infringed by Zhuhai ouguan's devices

    ClaimantLegal basis: EP 2 826 630 B1; EP 3 530 469 B1

    Note: Preliminary injunction granted for both patents against Defendant 1 in specified UPC territories; penalty up to EUR 250,000 per day.

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

  • Application dismissed in all other aspects against Defendant 1

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 206 RoP

    Reason: Certain aspects of the provisional measures application did not meet the legal requirements; exact grounds not detailed in the available excerpt.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
deemed good service under R. 275.2 RoP where Hague Convention service failsArt. 15(2) Hague Convention six-month period inapplicable without restriction in PI proceedingsdecision on PI application based on applicant's submissions alone where defendant fails to objecteffective judicial protection requires alternative service options where formal service is futilePI proceedings: regular order rather than default decision where defendant was given opportunity to respond

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The excerpt recites the full claim text of EP 3 530 469 B1 (ink cartridge with specific interface, guide, latch, and electrical circuit arrangement) as the basis for the injunction order, but no disputed claim terms or construction arguments are discussed.