Short Summary
The applicant, sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 relating to a counter-current swimming device, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of the respondents ahead of a potential main infringement action. The respondents are wholesale distributors of inverter-controlled pool and garden technology, with the Austrian parent company marketing an 'InverJet' counter-current system. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order concerning the inspection and evidence preservation request filed on October 28, 2025.
Detailed Summary
The applicant, Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V., is the registered sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8, titled "Counter-Current Swimming Device" (Gegenstromschwimmvorrichtung). The patent was filed on November 13, 2019, claiming priority from a Dutch patent application dated November 13, 2018, and was granted on July 30, 2025, with unitary effect. No opposition was filed against the grant. The respondents are Inverquark Deutschland GmbH (responsible for the German market) and Inverquark GmbH (the Austrian parent company, responsible for the website www.inverquark.at). Both respondents are specialized wholesale distributors of inverter-controlled pool and garden technology, supplying specialist dealers, installers, pool builders, and garden/landscape contractors in Austria and Germany. The parent company markets a counter-current system under the designation "InverJet."
On October 28, 2025, the applicant filed an application for an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the respondents' trade fair stand, in preparation for a potential main infringement action. The application was made pursuant to Article 60 of the European Patent Convention Agreement, and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of the patent-in-suit, which claims a counter-current swimming device for installation in existing swimming pools, featuring a specific configuration with a lower housing part having an inlet, an upper housing part, an outlet nozzle, a propeller screw positioned in the lower housing, and a motor positioned outside the housing coupled to the propeller, with the inlet cross-section being larger than the exit cross-section and the flow channel continuously narrowing from the propeller screw to the outlet nozzle.
& Analysis
The order was issued by the panel of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, comprising the presiding judge Thomas, the legally qualified judge Dr. Schumacher as rapporteur, and the legally qualified judge Mlakar. The proceedings were conducted in German. The court addressed the application for inspection and evidence preservation, considering the procedural requirements under the relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure governing such pre-litigation measures.
Final Order & Ruling
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued the order on October 30, 2025, concerning European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8. The order was rendered in the matter of the applicant's request for inspection and evidence preservation filed on October 28, 2025, in advance of a planned main infringement action against the respondents.
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 Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. vs Inverquark Deutschland GmbH a.o. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Bayerische Motoren Werke AktiengesellschaftvsRespondent
This order concerns an application by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) seeking rectification of an earlier order dated 9 January 2025, which had dismissed ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s application to set aside a decision by default revoking European patent EP 2 796 333. BMW requested that the earlier order be supplemented to include a provision ordering ITCiCo to bear the costs of the set-aside proceedings. The respondent did not file any written comments despite being invited to do so. The panel addressed the scope of Rule 356 RoP regarding rectification and the nature of cost decisions in the context of internal procedural remedies.
BMS Innovations, LLCvsBYD Company Ltd et al
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) ruled on BYD's application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in an infringement action concerning EP3393001. The court ordered BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI) to provide security of EUR 350,000 for BYD's legal costs and expenses, to be furnished within four weeks of service of the order, failing which a default decision may be issued under Rule 355 RoP.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vs1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the service of a preliminary injunction order dated 19 December 2025 on Defendant 2, Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese-based company. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, along with notification via email to Defendant 2's Amazon seller profile address, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, with service deemed effective as of 2 February 2026.
Adeia Guides Inc.vsThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. Et al.
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP1969839, brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of both actions under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure, along with a 40% reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered a 20% reimbursement of court fees to each side, dismissing the request for a higher reimbursement percentage.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGEvsROBERT BOSCH DOO, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_1963/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23 mars 2026 (R333 RdP révision d’une ordonnance) ENTETE La condition fixée par l’article 33.1(b) AJUB relative au lien commercial entre le
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.