Short Summary
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court upheld a judge-rapporteur's order denying the claimant's application for leave to change its claim to add an auxiliary request asserting infringement by equivalence for additional patent features. The defendants had requested a panel review under R. 333 RoP, arguing the reasoning was disadvantageous to them. The panel found the review admissible but rejected it on the merits, confirming that extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 did not alter the nature or scope of the dispute.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an infringement action filed by Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. (the Claimant) against Cybex GmbH, Cybex Retail GmbH, and Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG (the Defendants) regarding European patent EP 1 905 615, which relates to a swivel locking device for stroller wheels. The Claimant alleged infringement by equivalence of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11, directed against the sale and distribution of several strollers having swivel locking devices (the challenged embodiment). The Claimant did not assert literal infringement.
In its 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 are implemented literally. In their Statement of defence, the Defendants contested infringement with regard to features 1.9 and 1.10. In the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of defence, filed on 16 June 2025, the Claimant argued that if the Court found the challenged embodiment did not infringe features 1.9 and 1.10 literally, infringement by equivalence would also apply to these features. On the same day, the Claimant filed an application for leave to change claim, seeking to add an auxiliary request claiming infringement by equivalence for features 1.9 and 1.10. The Defendants objected.
By Procedural Order of 29 August 2025, the judge-rapporteur denied the Claimant's application for leave to change claim, reasoning that R. 263 RoP does not apply to the extension of the equivalence argument in this case. On 15 September 2025, the Defendants requested a panel review of this order under R. 333 RoP. The Defendants argued that the reasoning was disadvantageous to them and that the newly argued 'cavity' and 'clasping mechanism' were not identified in the Statement of claim but appeared for the first time in the Reply. The Claimant contended the request was inadmissible, arguing the Defendants were not disadvantaged since the order rejected the Claimant's own application.
The panel found the request admissible. Under R. 333.1 RoP, case management decisions by the judge-rapporteur are subject to panel review on a reasoned application by a party, and unlike R. 220.1 RoP, R. 333 RoP does not require the party to be adversely affected. The 15-day deadline under R. 333.2 RoP was met.
On the merits, the panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order. Applying the Court of Appeal's order of 21 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_456/2024 – OrthoApnea), the panel held that the equivalence argument does not necessarily change the nature or scope of the dispute. The fact that the Claimant sought to claim infringement by equivalence for features 1.9 and 1.10, in addition to features 1.4 and 1.6, did not alter the nature or scope of the dispute and did not constitute an amendment of the case. The equivalence argument remained based on the same patent and directed against the same products (strollers with swivel locking devices). The panel rejected the Defendants' argument that literal and equivalent infringement claims describe 'totally different products,' noting that all affected components are part of the swivel locking device identified in the Statement of claim, and the Claimant's new reasoning was essentially based on different feature allocations. The panel held that the fact that components affected by the extended equivalence argument were not designated as such (e.g., 'cavity') in the Statement of claim does not mean a different product is affected, as this is inherent in the doctrine of equivalence. The judge-rapporteur's order of 29 August 2025 was upheld.
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 Cybex GmbH and Others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TCL Europe SASvsCorning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated on 22 April 2025 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. Following an interim conference held on 28 November 2025, the Judge-rapporteur issued an order on 1 December 2025 setting out procedural directions, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the case, and the date for the oral hearing.
Ocado Innovation LimitedvsAutostore AS and Others
This case concerns an appeal by Ocado Innovation Limited against an order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division granting a member of the public access to the statement of claim in infringement proceedings Ocado had brought against multiple Autostore entities. The Court of Appeal addressed two issues: the composition of its panel under Art. 9(1) UPCA, and public access to written pleadings and evidence under R.262.1(b) RoP. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a panel of three legally qualified judges may decide purely non-technical matters, and that the balance of interests favored granting access to the statement of claim.
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) LimitedvsPR Medical s.r.l.
The defendant, PR Medical s.r.l., an Italian company, raised a preliminary objection requesting that the language of proceedings be changed from English to Italian, arguing that Rule 14(2)(b) RoP and Article 33(1)(a) UPCA required Italian as the language since it is based in Italy and the alleged infringement occurred there. The Milan Local Division rejected the objection, holding that the two cumulative conditions of Rule 14.2(b) RoP were not both satisfied because the claimant had alleged and shown infringement in other Contracting Member States (notably Germany and Spain), meaning the action could have been brought before other local divisions.
Gowling WLGvsMerz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France, Viatris Santé
Gowling WLG, a law firm representing clients before the Unified Patent Court, requested access to the case file of proceedings between Merz and Viatris (UPC_CFI_697/2025) concerning EP2377536 and its SPC. The Paris Local Division granted limited access, restricting disclosure to documents and submissions specifically relating to the 'unreasonable delay' point of law under Rule 211.4 RoP, which was the sole issue decided in the final order of 21 November 2025.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.vsDolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
Roku appealed orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected its objections to the court's jurisdiction in three infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust concerning three European patents. The Court of Appeal held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Articles 71a et seq. Brussels Ia Regulation and Article 32 UPCA does not interfere with the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts under Articles 19 TEU and 267 TFEU, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Article 87(2) UPCA to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division. All appeals were dismissed.
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.