Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Shenzhen Yunding Information Co., Ltd. (UPC_CFI_516/2024)

ORD_50890/2024 dated 9 September 2024 concerning EP 3 197 316

After visiting trade fair IFA 2024, which started on 6 September 2024 in Berlin, claimant and patentee Koninklijke Philips N.V (in short “Philips”) successfully requested an ex-parte provisional injunction on 9 September 2024 before the Local Division of Hamburg after it realized that Shenzhen Yunding Information Co., Ltd presented the attacked embodiments of electric tooth brushes with labelling “Oclean” and “X Ultra S” at their trade fair stand.

Prior to requesting the provisional injunction, the applicant had drawn the alleged infringer's attention to the infringing acts by way of a cease-and-desist letter dated August 22, 2024. The cease-and-desist letter was accompanied by a draft application for a provisional injunction.

Although the respondent subsequently issued a declaration that it would cease-and-desist under penalty, did not dispute the infringement of the patent, and also stated that it would not attend the trade fair IFA 2024, the claimant realized only some days later that this was obviously not adhered to and decided to file the application for provisional injunction.

The Hamburg Local Division considered the request for provisional injunction as being justified.

Since the respondent did not dispute the infringement of the patent as granted and has also signed the cease-and-desist letter, there were no grounds for assuming non-infringement.

The matter was considered urgent (R. 209.2b) RoP), because the request for provisional injunction was filed within a few days after knowledge of infringement. As the IFA is an important trade fair with considerable relevance for the industry and irreparable damage is to be feared, the application for a provisional injunction was also considered appropriate and justified (R. 212.1 RoP).

The Hamburg Local Division considered the validity of the patent as granted to be secured to the extent necessary for the issuance of the provisional injunction because no opposition was filed against the patent after it was granted in July 2023, comparable patents with essentially identical scope of protection were also granted in Japan, USA and China, and the defendant was unable to present any relevant prior art in the pre-trial correspondence with the claimant.

Last but not least, the Hamburg Local Division prescribed that the court’s order is to be presented in person at the IFA 2024 trade fair in Berlin by the applicant's authorized UPC representatives together with a copy of the application for provisional injunction, including the evidence and other documents on which the order is based (R. 212.2, 276.1 RoP).