Short Summary
Brita SE, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1 relating to water filter devices with locking cartridges, filed a preliminary injunction application against the Polish company Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. The defendant is part of the Fileder Group, whose German distribution subsidiary had previously been warned by Brita for alleged patent infringement and issued a cease-and-desist declaration, subsequently identifying the defendant as the supplier of the allegedly infringing water filter systems. The Local Division Hamburg issued an order on November 6, 2025, following receipt of the application on November 5, 2025.
Detailed Summary
The claimant, Brita SE, is a German company based in Taunusstein and the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1 (the 'patent in suit'). The patent was filed on March 20, 2008, claiming priority from German application DE 10 2007 017 388 dated April 5, 2007, and was published on November 9, 2011. The patent is in force and its procedural language is German. The defendant, Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o., is a Polish company based in Łódź and forms part of the Fileder Group, which specializes in the consultation and supply of water filter systems, water treatment products, and water filter housings. The Fileder Group's German distribution arm, Fileder Filter SYSTEMS Europe GmbH, supplied water filter systems in Germany that are alleged to infringe the patent in suit.
The Patent and Its Claims: The patent in suit concerns a device for treating water, particularly a filter device, and a cartridge. Independent claim 1 is directed to a device comprising a cartridge with a container for receiving water treatment agent (particularly filter medium) and a connection head arranged on the container, together with a connection element having a receptacle for the connection head. The claim is characterized in that at least one locking shaft is provided in the connection element for fixing the connection head within the connection element, the locking shaft being rotatably mounted so as to be rotatable between a locking position and an unlocking position, and in that the connection head has at least one recess into which the locking shaft engages in the locking position.
Brita SE sent a cease-and-desist letter dated September 8, 2025 to the German distribution company Fileder Filter SYSTEMS Europe GmbH, alleging infringement of the patent in suit by the water filter systems at issue. The German subsidiary, through legal counsel, subsequently issued a cease-and-desist and declaration of obligation with penalty clause on October 17, 2025. During the provision of information, the German subsidiary disclosed that the products it distributed were purchased products and that the supplier of those products was the defendant, Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. Based on this information, Brita SE directed its preliminary injunction application against the Polish defendant as the alleged manufacturer/supplier of the infringing water filter systems.
Court Composition and Procedure: The order was issued by the Local Division Hamburg, composed of Presiding Judge and Rapporteur Sabine Klepsch, legally qualified judge Dr. Stefan Schilling, and legally qualified judge Edger Brinkman. The procedural language is German. The application was received on November 5, 2025, and the order was issued on November 6, 2025. The claimant is represented by Bird & Bird LLP, with attorneys Oliver Jan Jüngst and Lucas Brons, together with patent attorney Dr. Jörn Felix Harbsmeier.
Final Order & Ruling: The available text of the order is truncated at the point where the court begins to describe the claimant's preliminary injunction request directed against the defendant ('Mit ihrem Verfügungsantrag richtet sich die Antragstellerin gegen den V...'). The full reasoning and operative provisions of the order are not contained in the provided text excerpt.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Hamburg (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Brita SE vs Fileder Filter Systems Spolka z o.o. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.vsLONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The court addressed the question of whether service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) via registered letter that was not collected by the addressee should be deemed valid. Applying Rule 271.6.b of the Rules of Procedure, the presiding judge deemed service on Defendant 4 to have been completed on 14 March 2025 and ordered the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Thomas Misgaiski, Lea Prehn, Dr. Marievs1) Sercomm Corporation, 2) SerComm Deutschland GmbH
Huawei Technologies filed a patent infringement action against four Sercomm entities (based in Taiwan, Germany, France, and Italy) concerning European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1, which Huawei describes as essential for WiFi6. The plaintiff alleges indirect infringement of claims 1–6 and direct infringement of claims 7–12, and licenses the patent both bilaterally and through the SISVEL pool. Following an early interim hearing held by video conference on July 8, 2026, the presiding judge issued a procedural order scheduling a further interim hearing for April 16, 2027 and an oral hearing for May 5, 2027, while reserving the possibility of separating the proceedings against the differently served defendants.
Labrador Diagnostics LLCvsbioMérieux SA. a. o.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA and five of its European subsidiaries concerning European patent EP 3 756 767 B1, which relates to instruments and methods for detecting biological analytes. The Düsseldorf Local Division bifurcated the case, referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, which amended the patent to maintain only two claims. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding no direct or indirect infringement of the amended claims by the challenged VIDAS 3 instrument and related reagent strips and Solid Phase Receptacles, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc.vsKoninklijke Philips N.V. Et al
This is a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 437 696 B2, owned by Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. (ABM), which relates to systems and methods for controlling position, particularly wearable position therapy devices for treating sleep disorders. ABM alleges that Philips' NightBalance position therapy device infringes device claims 1, 2, and 4 of the patent. The patent had previously been confirmed in amended form by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal on 25 December 2024 following opposition proceedings initiated by a Philips group member.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SLvsSun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by Vivo against orders of the Paris Local Division that had rejected Vivo's preliminary objections challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over FRAND-related claims. The court held that the Paris LD properly exercised its discretion in deferring the admissibility decision on the FRAND determination claim to the main proceedings, and that the panel (rather than only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make such a deferral decision.
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.