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
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.