Short Summary
This procedural order concerns an application by the Claimant, Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd., for leave to change its claim under R. 263 RoP in an infringement action regarding European patent EP 1 905 615, which relates to swivel locking devices for stroller wheels. The Claimant sought to extend its equivalence argument from features 1.4 and 1.6 to also cover features 1.9 and 1.10, and to make corrections to main request II and add auxiliary request II.a. The Düsseldorf Local Division denied the application for leave to change the claim.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by Judge Dr Schumacher of the Düsseldorf Local Division on 29 August 2025 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 1 905 615 (with unitary effect), which relates to swivel locking devices for stroller wheels.
The Claimant, Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. (a Taiwanese company), filed an infringement action against the Defendants (Cybex GmbH, Cybex Retail GmbH, and Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG, all based in Germany), alleging infringement by equivalence of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the patent in suit. The action was directed against the sale and distribution of several strollers having swivel locking devices (the 'challenged embodiment').
In the Statement of claim, the Claimant alleged that the challenged embodiment uses features 1.4 and 1.6 of independent claim 1 by equivalent means, while all other features were implemented literally. The Defendants filed a Statement of defence and a Counterclaim for revocation, contesting, inter alia, infringement with regard to features 1.9 and 1.10.
On 16 June 2025, the Claimant filed a Reply to the Statement of defence, a Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation, and an Application to amend the patent. In the Reply, the Claimant extended its equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10, arguing that if the Court found no literal infringement of these features, infringement by equivalence would still apply. On the same day, the Claimant filed an application for leave to change claim, seeking leave to change main request II and to add auxiliary request II.a.
The Court analyzed whether R. 263 RoP applied to the Claimant's changes. The Court found that extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 did not constitute an amendment of the case. The Court reasoned that the equivalence argument remained based on the same patent and was directed against the same products (the challenged strollers). The extension mainly concerned whether the 'stem' or 'pin' of the swivel locking device should be considered part of the 'seat' or part of the 'base,' which affected the location of the cavity mentioned in features 1.9 and 1.10. The Court noted that the new reasoning essentially involved a different feature allocation, with the Claimant assigning the same components of the challenged embodiment to the features of claim 1 differently, but all components were part of the challenged embodiment identified in the Statement of claim.
Regarding the changes to main request II, the Court found that R. 263 RoP did not apply because the changes were essentially corrections of typographical errors, which the Defendants had not specifically contested.
The Court also noted that even if a new argument is not an amendment of the case requiring judicial leave under R. 263 RoP, there are still restrictions on raising new arguments under R. 13 RoP and R. 9.2 RoP, but stated this issue was not subject of the application at hand and would have to be decided at a later date.
Despite the analysis, the Court ultimately denied the Claimant's application for leave to change the claim.
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 Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ltd. 13 Zahrin Street 4366241 Ra’anana – IsraelvsSHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd., HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
Cardo Systems Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 4 240 194 relating to a fastening device for head-protective gear, sought a decision by default against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co. Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited for infringement of its patent through the sale of Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX products. The defendants failed to enter an appearance or file any defence despite valid service, and the three-month period under Rule 23 RoP had expired. The Court granted the default judgment, finding that the defendants' deliberate copying of the patent and continued infringement demonstrated awareness, warranting damages under Article 68(1) UPCA.
Volkswagen AGvsRespondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Volkswagen AG's request for rectification of a prior order that had directed Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in three related proceedings. Volkswagen sought to have the order rectified to include a notification under R.158.4 RoP that failure to provide security could result in a decision by default under R.355 RoP. The Court of Appeal declined rectification but issued a separate order providing the required notification to NST.
WhiteWater West Industries Ltd., Endless Surf Ltd., White Water Era GmbHvsSurftown GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing an application under R. 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information. The court granted the application, classifying certain technical details of the challenged embodiment as confidential, and restricted access to the unredacted versions of the parties' submissions to the Claimant's legal representatives and their internal assistants. The Claimant was also given an opportunity to supplement its submissions regarding the role of a natural person (Mr. [...]) for whom access to the confidential information was requested.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SEvsIPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1, titled 'Method and arrangement for generating a laser beam with different beam profile characteristics.' TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE, the sole proprietor of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent, sued IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG for patent infringement. The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf heard oral arguments on January 22, 2026 and rendered its decision on March 16, 2026.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsC.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. and Others
This is a case management order issued by the Hague Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2590626 owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT'). The order addresses the admission of new exhibits into the proceedings, including the Cayman 2024 Report and the 2021 BioNTech Website, and clarifies the scope of inventive step attacks and auxiliary requests that PBNT may rely on at the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 3 September 2026.
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.