Short Summary
This is a default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 912 243 B1. The plaintiff, igus GmbH, a German company based in Cologne, holds the patent directed to a compact cable guide for cleanroom applications with a sheath unit and clamping device. The defendant, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., a Chinese company, failed to appear in the proceedings, leading to the default ruling. The patent was filed on January 14, 2020, granted on March 20, 2024, and granted unitary effect on April 17, 2024.
Detailed Summary
The plaintiff, igus GmbH, represented by its managing directors Frank Blase, Michael Blaß, Artur Peplinski, Dr. Thilo Konrad Schultes, and Tobias Vogel, is the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 912 243 B1 (the patent-in-suit). igus GmbH is based in Cologne, Germany, and was represented in the proceedings by attorneys Dr. André Sabellek and Tabea Schäfer of rospatt Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB in Düsseldorf. The defendant is Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., a Chinese company represented by its Board of Directors, located at Floor 2, Building B, No. 1200 Fenghua Road, Jiading District, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
The patent-in-suit was filed on January 14, 2020 in German as the procedural language. The patent application was published on November 24, 2021, and the mention of the grant was published on March 20, 2024. A request for unitary effect was filed on April 8, 2024, and unitary effect was registered on April 17, 2024, taking effect as of March 20, 2024.
The patent-in-suit protects a "compact cable guide for cleanroom applications, as well as sheath unit and clamping device therefor." Independent claim 1 describes a cable guide for cables, hoses, or similar lines for cleanroom applications, comprising an elongated, flexible sheath that can be moved back and forth, particularly forming a deflection arc between two runs, with the flexible sheath being closable at each end by a clamping device to prevent particle escape. The sheath comprises at least one sheath unit forming at least one tubular receptacle for guiding at least one line, with each receptacle extending channel-like in a longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end. The sheath has a plurality of these tubular receptacles running parallel to one another for the separate guidance of at least one line each. The characterizing feature is that the at least one sheath unit has, on at least one receptacle, particularly laterally, at least one functional area extending in the longitudinal direction, which comprises two closure profiles of a closure, wherein one closure profile cooperates with the other closure profile for dust-tight closing of an opened state in which a line can be inserted or removed transversely to the longitudinal direction.
The figures of the patent illustrate preferred embodiments, including Figure 1A showing the end region of a movable cable guide with a flexible sheath, and Figure 12 showing a sheath unit with a functional area with a closure having two closure profiles.
& Analysis: The decision was rendered as a default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) by the Court of First Instance. The panel consisted of Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified Judge Dr. Schumacher as Rapporteur, and legally qualified Judge Agergaard. The proceedings were conducted in German. The subject matter of the case was an infringement action (Verletzungsklage).
Final Order & Ruling: The judgment was issued on August 5, 2025, as a default decision due to the defendant's failure to appear or respond in the proceedings. The full operative provisions and detailed reasoning of the ruling are not contained in the provided text excerpt, which ends mid-sentence during the description of the defendant.
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 igus GmbH vs Respondent 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.