UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 692/2026

·EP3757442B1

Case details
Status
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional Measures
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Miriam Kiefer (Kather Augenstein); Arne-Steffen Kamps (Kather Augenstein); Svenja Ullmann (Kather Augenstein); Véronique Pede (GEVERS IP Law); Bastian Piepers (Ipsilon Belgium)
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Language
First decided
Feb 25, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-02-25
    PI grantedPreliminary injunctionApplication for provisional measures

    Düsseldorf Local Division granted provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Yaham Recience Technology for infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1 (LED display module for temporary exhibition stands). The order was issued ex parte during the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, with penalty payments ordered for non-compliance and provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 400,000.

    Legal issues:Provisional measures ex parte (R. 209, 212 RoP)Patent infringement at trade fairLED display module for exhibition standsPenalty paymentProvisional cost reimbursement
Documents
  • Order_UPC_CFI_692-2026_anonymized.pdf2026-02-25ENGLISH
Coverage: Thin.Reasoning extracted with limited coverage — see decisions tab for full text.
Plain-English summary

beMatrix NV obtained an ex parte preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Yaham Recience Technology Co. Ltd. during the EuroShop 2026 trade fair in Düsseldorf, for infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1 (a display module for modular temporary exhibition stands with LED screens). A penalty of up to EUR 400,000 was ordered for non-compliance. A clerical error in the order naming the applicant instead of the defendant was corrected on the same day under R. 353 RoP.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • Ex parte preliminary injunction warranted for patent infringement at EuroShop trade fair

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 209.1, 212 RoP

    Note: Düsseldorf LD granted an ex parte PI against Yaham Recience Technology exhibiting at EuroShop trade fair for infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1 (LED display module).

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

No rejected arguments captured.