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
Nixu FL IP Protection LLCvsINFOBLOX INC. a.o.
This procedural order concerns a request by the three defendants to align the time limit for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action. The defendants argued that alignment would simplify proceedings and synchronize deadlines, and the claimant's representative had agreed out of court. The court found the request reasonable, noting that the deviation was only about 20 days, and held that while the claimant was not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it bore the risk of deviating service dates due to its delay in arranging such payment.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KGvsRespondent
ORDER Of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued on 2/09/2024 APPLICANT: (in the main proceedings, respondent in the procedural application) Valeo Electrification, 14 avenue des Béguines, 95800 Cergy, France, represented by the President Thierry Kalanquin, wit
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KGvsALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning three European patents (EP 3 398 487, EP 3 281 569, and EP 3 610 762) in a dispute between CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (plaintiff) and ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH (defendant). The court addressed the question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the UPC Agreement regarding the handling of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. With the agreement of both parties, the chamber ordered that both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim be heard jointly, citing procedural efficiency and the moderate complexity of the technical subject matter.
CeraCon GmbHvsSunstar Engineering Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review of an order refusing leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413. CeraCon sought to introduce a new novelty attack based on EP'480, but the Court of Appeal found that CeraCon failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance was manifestly wrong in concluding that the amendment could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage under Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
Dolle A/SvsFarko a.o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1, with Dolle A/S as plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, and four FAKRO entities (from Austria, Germany, Denmark, and Poland) as defendants and counterclaimants. The decision addresses three key legal points: the interpretation of 'same invention' under Article 87 EPC for priority purposes, procedural rules regarding the timing of validity attacks in revocation counterclaims, and the interpretation of general claim terms in light of prior art cited in the patent. The Local Division Hamburg issued its decision on November 5, 2025, confirming the disclosure standard for priority as corresponding to the added matter standard.
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.