Short Summary
beMatrix NV, the proprietor of European Patent No. 3 757 442 B1 concerning a display module for temporary exhibition stands, applied for provisional measures against Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division, alleging that Yaham's "Sytaq RA" modular LED display system infringed the patent. After Yaham's CEO declined to cooperate when approached at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, the court granted the preliminary injunction ex parte. The court subsequently issued a rectification order on the same day to correct a clerical error that had mistakenly named the Applicant instead of the Defendant in the operative paragraph.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) filed by beMatrix NV, a Belgian public limited company, against Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese company, before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (Case No. UPC_CFI_692/2026).
The patent in suit is European Patent No. 3 757 442 B1, titled "Display Module for a temporary exhibition stand." It was filed on 15 December 2017 (application number 20186184.6), claiming priority from CN 201621424986 U (23 December 2016), and was granted on 2 March 2022. The patent was in force with no opposition pending. Claim 1 of the patent defines a display module for a modular temporary exhibition stand comprising LED screens, a display frame, and a signal receiver, with specific installation hole configurations characterized by the distance formula x = 31 + 62n (in millimeters). Dependent claims 13 and 14 cover modules and modular exhibition stands incorporating the display module.
beMatrix alleged that Yaham's "Sytaq RA" product—a modular system with LED screens—infringed the patent in suit. beMatrix first became aware of the new Sytaq RA product at the ISE 2026 trade fair in Barcelona (3–6 February 2026), where Yaham advertised and exhibited the product. The patent was not in force in Spain. beMatrix subsequently learned that Yaham was also exhibiting the attacked embodiment at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf (22–26 February 2026) and that Yaham's German distributor, LEDitgo Videowall Germany GmbH, was selling the product in Germany.
On 22 February 2026, employees of beMatrix spoke with Yaham's CEO, Mr. Keith Mok, about the alleged infringement. Mr. Mok showed no interest in cooperating. beMatrix's representatives also handed over a letter summarizing their work on the application for provisional measures. Yaham did not respond and did not refrain from exhibiting the attacked embodiment.
beMatrix applied ex parte (without hearing the Defendant) for a preliminary injunction seeking orders to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, importing, or possessing for these purposes the infringing display modules and related modular exhibition stand products in Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden. The application was directed at direct infringement of claim 1, as well as related claims concerning modules and modular exhibition stands.
The court, composed of legally qualified Judges Dr. Thom (acting as judge-rapporteur on behalf of Presiding Judge Thomas), Dr. Schumacher, and Lopes, issued the order for provisional measures on 25 February 2026. The proceedings were conducted in English.
On the same day, the court issued a separate rectification order pursuant to Rule 353 RoP, noting that the original order contained a clear clerical error in paragraph I. (the preliminary injunction), where it incorrectly stated "the Applicant is ordered to cease and desist" instead of "the Defendant is ordered to cease and desist." The court rectified this error accordingly.
The order informed the Defendant of its right to request a review of the order within 30 days of execution (under Articles 62(5) and 60(6) UPCA; Rules 212(3) and 197(3) RoP) and of the right to appeal within 15 days of service (under Articles 73(2)(a) and 62 UPCA; Rules 220.1(c) and 224.2(b) RoP).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in beMatrix NV vs Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sibio Technology LimitedvsAbbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning European patent EP 3 831 283. The Paris Central Division had dismissed Sibio's revocation action and maintained the patent as granted. On appeal, Sibio requested further exchanges of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP after Abbott's Statement of response referenced six auxiliary requests. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the auxiliary requests were already part of the proceedings from the first instance and did not require refiling on appeal.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsGuangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Before the Local Chamber Mannheim, the parties — Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH as defendants — reached a settlement and jointly withdrew the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent No. EP 2 568 724. The withdrawal was filed after the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vsLAMA France
This decision concerns cross-appeals filed by Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) and LAMA France before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patents EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669. After the Paris Local Division had found one patent invalid and the other infringed, both parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court of Appeal granted the mutual withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of procedural costs to each party.
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbHvsNetwork System Technologies LLC
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for an order requiring the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), to provide security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division in Munich dismissed the applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties or insolvency risk, and that NST's non-EU domicile could not serve as a basis for requiring security.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsXiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Panasonic Holdings Corporation, the plaintiff in a standard-essential patent (SEP) infringement action concerning EP 3 096 315 before the Local Chamber Mannheim, sought a court order directing itself to submit two license agreements that it could not voluntarily disclose due to confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the submission of both license agreements, permitting redactions of passages not relied upon by Panasonic for its factual allegations and legal arguments, while rejecting further requests.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.