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
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.