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
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.