Short Summary
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application for provisional measures without hearing the other party before the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court, seeking a preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited based on European Patent No. EP 4 240 194, which relates to a fastening device for communication units. The Court granted the provisional measures, including an injunction, an order for delivery up of infringing products at EICMA 2024, and penalty payments, subject to the Applicant providing security of €100,000.
Detailed Summary
This is an Order on Application for Provisional Measures Without Hearing the Other Party, issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, on 5 November 2024, by Single Judge Samuel Granata.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
On 4 November 2024, the Applicant, Cardo Systems, Ltd. (an Israeli company based in Ra'anana), filed an Application for Provisional Measures without Hearing the Other Party pursuant to Art. 62 UPCA, 60.5 UPCA, and R. 206(3) RoP. On the same day, the Notification of 'Positive Outcome Following Formal Checks' was communicated to the Applicant, and a single judge was appointed.
THE PARTIES:
- Applicant: Cardo Systems, Ltd., represented by Bird & Bird law firm (Tjibbe Douma, Giovanni Galimberti, Emelia Zalewska, Anna Koster) and European Patent Attorneys Markus Herzog and Manuel Millahn from Weickmann & Weickmann.
- Respondent 1: Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Respondent 2: Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited (Hong Kong)
THE PATENT AT ISSUE:
European Patent No. EP 4 240 194, which relates to a fastening device for releasably fastening a functional unit (such as a communication device) to a receiving unit (such as a helmet mount), using a combination of magnets and a mechanical snap-lock unit with a securing element.
ORDERS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT:
The Applicant requested:
1. An injunction ordering the Respondents to refrain from making, offering, placing on the market, using, importing, or storing infringing products (identified as Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX, and any Pro, Pro Max or Plus versions) in the territories of UPC Member States, covering claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of EP 4 240 194.
2. Delivery up of the infringing products and promotional/advertising material to the bailiff at EICMA 2024.
3. Penalty payments for violations.
THE COURT'S ORDER:
The Court granted the provisional measures, ruling that:
1. INJUNCTION: The Respondents were ordered to refrain from the infringing activities in UPC member state territories regarding the specified claims of EP 4 240 194.
2. DELIVERY UP: The Respondents were ordered to deliver up the infringing products and promotional/advertising material to the bailiff at EICMA 2024. The Applicant was ordered to inform the Court of the bailiff's name and the location where seized goods are kept within five days of execution.
3. PENALTY: The Respondents were ordered to pay €1,000 per individual violation (with one infringing act with one Infringing Product considered a single infringement), with a maximum of €500,000.
4. ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY: The order is immediately enforceable, subject to the Applicant providing security of €100,000 within 10 days of service, either as a deposit or replaceable within 3 months by a bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank. Non-compliance would suspend enforceability and require return of seized goods.
5. SERVICE: The order was to be served to the Respondents at the Asmax stand at EICMA 2024, Fiera Milano, by the bailiff, with Bird & Bird representatives permitted to assist in execution.
6. POLICE ASSISTANCE: The bailiff was authorized to request police assistance if necessary under Italian law.
7. MERITS PROCEEDINGS: The Applicant was ordered to institute proceedings on the merits within 31 calendar days or 20 working days from service, failing which the order could be revoked.
8. COSTS: Costs were reserved for the proceedings on the merits.
9. REVIEW/APPEAL: The Court noted that the order may be reviewed and appealed.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Milan (IT) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Cardo Systems, Ltd. vs Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
LABSvsGC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED, NAGOR LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS, EUROSILICONE SAS, GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L., GC AESTHETICS GmbH, GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U., GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED, ROMED N.V.
This order concerns an application under R.190 RoP filed by the GC Aesthetics group of companies in parallel UPC infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_1357/2025) and counterclaim for revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_629/2025) against LABS regarding EP 3 107 487 B1, which relates to Motiva breast implants including the Motiva SilkSurface. The Court ordered LABS to produce extensive evidence including sales figures, physical samples, promotional materials, third-party test reports, technical specifications, regulatory documentation, and Design History Files, aligning the requests and timeframes with parallel UK disclosure proceedings. The Court imposed a recurring penalty of €2,000 per day of delay to ensure compliance.
Visibly Inc.vsEasee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V.
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP3918974, brought a patent infringement action against Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg. Visibly requested that the Defendants provide security for procedural costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure, citing the Defendants' weak financial position. The Court ordered the Defendants to jointly provide security in the amount of EUR 75,000 within four weeks, finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate after balancing the competing interests.
President and Fellows of Harvard CollegevsNanoString Technologies Europe Limited
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC.vsGreenchemicals S.R.L.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures filed by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in relation to European Patent EP 1 957 544 B1. The applicant withdrew its application for preliminary measures with the defendant's consent, and the court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the applicant.
Hand Held Products Inc.vsScandit AG and Scandit Inc.
This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) regarding European Patent EP4163816. Both parties, Hand Held Products Inc. and Scandit (AG and Inc), reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees since the written procedure was still ongoing.
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.