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 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.