Nuna International B.V. & Allison GmbH v. Cybex GmbH

This proceeding involves an appeal filed by Nuna International B.V. (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Allison GmbH (Frankenthal, Germany) against an order of the Local Division Hamburg dated August 10, 2026 (case UPC_CFI 1321/2026). The respondent is Cybex GmbH (Bayreuth, Germany), the holder of European Patent EP 4 242 056, which concerns a child seat system comprising at least a first seat element, a second seat element, and a base. Cybex had applied for interim measures alleging that Nuna and Allison infringed the patent through the offering and distribution of a child seat system consisting of the 'base curve' base, the 'todl next' child seat (first seat element), and the 'cari next' baby carrier or the 'pipa lite', 'pipa next', 'arra flex', and 'arra next' child seats (second seat elements). Cybex further alleged indirect infringement through the offering and/or supplying of individual components.

The Local Division Hamburg found it more likely than not that direct infringement occurred (excluding the 'arra next' child seat) and granted Cybex's requests for injunction, information, and coercive measures (Requests I.1, I.3, I.4, I.5). The Local Division also found indirect infringement likely and granted Request I.2 along with the related Requests I.3, I.4, and I.5. The operative part of Request I.2 included an additional 'insbesondere ohne' (in particular without) clause requiring specific disclaimers when offering or supplying the 'base curve' base system or the individual seat elements. Nuna and Allison filed an appeal on August 10, 2026, and simultaneously applied for suspensive effect pursuant to Art. 74 UPCA in conjunction with R. 223 RoP. They argued that a manifest error existed in the first-instance order. Cybex initially indicated on August 13, 2026, that it intended to enforce the order, but after being served with the suspensive effect application, declared that it would not enforce the 'insbesondere ohne' portion of Ziffer I.2 of the contested order.

& Analysis: The Court of Appeal, sitting as Panel 3 with Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß and legally qualified judges Bart van den Broek and Nathalie Sabotier, addressed several key legal questions. First, the Court established that a manifest error under Art. 74(1) UPCA in conjunction with R. 223 RoP gives rise to granting suspensive effect to an appeal, but such effect need not extend to the entire contested first-instance decision. The suspensive effect may be limited to a distinct part of the decision that is affected by or based on the manifest error. Second, the Court defined a 'distinct part' of a court decision as one that can be assessed or impugned separately from other parts without affecting the meaning of either that part or the remaining parts. Third, the Court addressed the validity of a waiver of enforcement, holding that such a waiver is valid if it clearly indicates the title under which and the extent to which enforcement will no longer take place (specificity), and is unambiguous, irrevocable, and unconditional. Fourth, the Court held that a valid waiver of enforcement may obviate the need for legal protection in relation to an application under R. 223 RoP.

Final Order & Ruling: The appellants (Nuna and Allison) requested, as their primary request, that suspensive effect be ordered for the entire appeal; alternatively, that suspensive effect be granted at least for the entire indirect infringement ruling (Ziff. I.2 and related parts of I.3, I.4, and I.5); and as a further alternative, that suspensive effect be granted specifically for the disclaimer portion of Ziffer I.2. They also requested that costs be imposed on Cybex. Cybex requested that the application for suspensive effect be dismissed, and in the event a separate cost decision was warranted, that the proportionate costs of the resolved portion be set off and the remaining costs be imposed on the appellants. The Court of Appeal issued its order on August 21, 2026, addressing these submissions and the legal questions regarding the scope of suspensive effect and the effect of a waiver of enforcement on the need for legal protection.