UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 998/2025

Oct 1, 2025·EP3777595 · INTEGRATED CLOSURE DEVICE COMPONENTS AND METHODS

Follow
Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Other consumer goods
Language
English
First decided
Jun 1, 2026
Last decision
Jul 15, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Samuel GranataLockedLocked
Judge Ingo RinkenLockedLocked
Judge Giorgio CheccacciLockedLocked

At the UPC: Boa Technology Inc. (3 cases)·FLA Europe NV (2 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 996/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-07-15
    InfringementPublic

    Summary: The Judge-Rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order resolving a dispute over the electronic signature requirement for the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence, Application to Amend the Patent, and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court held that the Claimant's failure to electronically sign the submissions filed on 4 May 2026 was excusable given the absence of Court of Appeal guidance at that time, retroactively extended the filing deadline to 13 July 2026 (when signed versions were submitted), and preserved 4 May 2026 as the original filing date.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Electronic signature requirement under R. 4.1 RoP
    • Power to disregard submissions under R. 9.2 RoP
    • Retroactive extension of procedural time limit under R. 9.3(a) RoP
    • Excusable error and principles of fairness and equity in procedural compliance
    • Effect of subsequent CoA guidance (SharkNinja v. SEB, UPC_CoA_61/2026) on earlier non-compliant filings
  • 2026-06-01
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Judge-Rapporteur dismissed Defendant 2 (Shinkyung Inc.)'s application for security for costs under R. 158 RoP. The Court found that SHINKYUNG's arguments — based primarily on the financial difficulties of BOA's holding company CODI — were insufficient, since only BOA's own financial situation is relevant, and BOA was found to have sufficient means to cover any future costs order.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Security for costs under R. 158 RoP / Art. 69(4) UPCA
    • Whether financial situation of holding company (CODI) is relevant to assessing claimant's means
    • Threshold for ordering security: sufficient means to meet a future costs order
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-09-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-07Not public
Further pleadings2026-09-07Not public
Receipt2026-09-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-07Not public
Further pleadings2026-09-07Not public
Order2026-07-20Not public
Order2026-07-20Public
Publication of order2026-07-16Not public
Order2026-07-15Not public
Order2026-07-15Public
Receipt2026-07-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-07-13Not public
Further pleadings2026-07-13Not public
Receipt2026-07-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-06Not public
Document2026-07-06Not public
Receipt2026-07-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-06Not public
Receipt2026-07-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-06Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-07-06Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-07-06Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-07-06Not public
Statement of rejoinder2026-07-06Not public
Document2026-07-06Not public
Receipt2026-07-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-06Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-07-06Not public
Statement of rejoinder2026-07-06Not public
Receipt2026-07-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-06Not public
Document2026-07-06Not public
Communication2026-06-30Not public
Order2026-06-01Not public
Order2026-06-01Public
Receipt2026-05-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Statement of reply2026-05-04Not public
Order2026-03-25Not public
Order2026-03-25Public
Receipt2026-03-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-19Not public
Submission Claimant2026-03-19Not public
Receipt2026-03-18Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-18Not public
Submission Defendant2026-03-18Not public
Receipt2026-03-18Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-18Not public
Submission Defendant2026-03-18Not public
Order2026-03-09Not public
Order2026-03-09Not public
Order2026-03-06Not public
Order2026-03-06Not public
Receipt2026-02-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Counterclaim for revocation2026-02-27Not public
Statement of defence2026-02-27Not public
Receipt2026-02-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-27Not public
Document Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Counterclaim for revocation2026-02-27Not public
Statement of defence2026-02-27Not public
Statement of defence2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Receipt2026-02-25Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-25Not public
Document Defendant2026-02-25Not public
Publication2026-01-19Not public
Receipt2026-01-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-16Not public
Document2026-01-16Not public
Order2026-01-15Not public
Order2026-01-15Not public
Receipt2026-01-05Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-05Not public
Document2026-01-05Not public
Receipt2025-12-30Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-30Not public
Other document Defendant2025-12-30Not public
Communication2025-12-29Not public
Receipt2025-12-19Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-19Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-12-19Not public
Other document Claimant2025-12-19Not public
Communication2025-12-11Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-11Not public
Other document Defendant2025-12-11Not public
Receipt2025-12-11Not public
Publication2025-11-06Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2025-11-06Not public
Other Documents2025-10-08Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-01Not public
Fee2025-10-01Not public
Statement of claim2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Receipt2025-10-01Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Only BOA's own financial situation (not that of its holding company CODI) is relevant when assessing sufficient means under Art. 69(4) UPCA

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA; UPC CoA Order UPC_CFI_548/2024 (Aarke v. Sodastream) §21

  • BOA's latest financial analysis (17 March 2026, Q4 2025) shows CODI earned USD 64.3 million, demonstrating BOA has sufficient means

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R. 158 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • CODI's stock price decline of 62% in 2025 and negative growth estimates for 2026 demonstrate that BOA lacks sufficient means to meet a future costs order

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 158 RoP; Art. 69(4) UPCA