2025-07-10 - LD Düsseldorf - Aesculap v. Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) - UPC_CFI_213/2025

1. If the defendant informs the Registry that it does not wish to be represented at the oral hearing, and then fails to appear in the oral hearing, it will be treated as relying only on its written submissions. In a situation like this, the Court decides on the merits of the case in at least PI proceedings as if the defendant had been present in the oral hearing. The Court’s power is not limited to the possibility of issuing a decision by default. 2. Even if the defendant can dispute the applicant’s initial statement equally in broad terms, it must respond and, taking into account its duty to tell the truth, declare whether it disputes the statement. This applies at least if the applicant substantiates its allegation of infringement with specific facts, rather than making a general allegation. For an assertion to be considered substantially contested, the defendant must dispute it. If the defendant fails to do so and merely makes general statements about the applicant’s burden of proof, the corresponding submission of the claimant is deemed undisputed, R. 171.2 RoP.

The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an application for provisional measures and ordered a preliminary injunction in the absence of the Respondent - but not as a decision by default. The Court went into detail regarding the applicable legal standard and clarified that a "real" decision could also be made in absence of the Respondent. The Court further dealt with the requirement to dispute the Applicant's claims and stated that mere general statements on the burden of proof were not sufficient, deeming the Claimant's submission undisputed.