| 2025-10-21 | UPC_CFI_553/2025 | Hamburg LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Hamburg Local Division granted Occlutech GmbH's application for a preliminary injunction against Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd. and Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. for threatened infringement of EP 2 387 951 (braided occlusion device). The Court held that CE-mark approval for the defendants' competing medical device constituted imminent infringement under R. 206.2(c) RoP, regardless of whether the applicant had prior knowledge. An injunction was issued prohibiting offering, placing on the market, and use in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland. Value: EUR 1,000,000; defendants bear costs. |
| 2025-09-17 | UPC_CFI_479/2025 | The Hague LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Hague Local Division granted provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Defendants 2-5 (IBBH, BEGA Consult, BEGA BBK, NEG Novex) for infringement of EP 3 522 755 B1 (washing machine cabinet). The claim against Defendant 1 (Wasombouw) was settled. Injunctions ordered against specific infringing products (Laundreezy and Respekta Clara cabinets), with costs of EUR 56,000 plus court fees awarded against the defendants jointly. |
| 2025-05-08 | UPC_CFI_582/2024 | Brussels LD | Generic application | — | Dismissed | The Brussels Local Division dismissed Yealink's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Final Order of 21 March 2025, which had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures and ordered Barco to pay Yealink's costs up to the EUR 112,000 ceiling. Yealink sought to clarify the order by adding the word 'interim' to the costs award, but the court found no clerical error, miscalculation or obvious omission warranting rectification. The court confirmed that the costs award of EUR 112,000 against Barco (the unsuccessful party in the provisional measures) was already clearly an interim award on the face of the Final Order. |
| 2025-03-21 | UPC_CFI_582/2024 | Brussels LD | Application for provisional measures | — | PI denied | The Local Division Brussels dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures against Yealink due to lack of urgency. Barco had waited an unreasonably long period before filing, having been aware of the allegedly infringing products since at least May 2023. Barco was ordered to pay Yealink's costs up to EUR 112,000. Dispute value set at EUR 1,000,000. |
| 2024-11-05 | UPC_CFI_643/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | Milan Local Division granted Cardo Systems' application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction and seizure) against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. without hearing the respondents (ex parte). The court ordered: (1) service by bailiff at EICMA 2024 trade fair in Milan; (2) seizure and description of infringing products; (3) institution of merits proceedings within 31 days on pain of revocation. Costs to be settled in the merits proceedings. |
| 2024-06-03 | ACT_16267/2024 | Hamburg LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | Hamburg Local Division dismissed Ballinno B.V.'s application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH in connection with EP 1 944 067 (method for detecting offside situations in football). The application was dismissed on urgency grounds: Ballinno had waited almost three months after acquiring knowledge of the alleged infringement before taking decisive investigative steps, which was incompatible with the urgency requirement under Art. 62(2) UPCA. Ballinno was ordered to pay costs including those of the protective letter. |
| 2024-03-13 | UPC_CFI_354/2023 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | — | Settled | The Munich Local Division issued a decision confirming the settlement between the parties in provisional measures proceedings brought by Steindl Krantechnik against BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik concerning EP 3 287 315. Following the oral hearing of 30 January 2024, the parties reached a preliminary agreement and subsequently filed a settlement text under R. 365 RoP. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered its details to be kept confidential (R. 365.2 RoP), and noted that no separate costs decision was required as costs were regulated in the settlement. |