2025-09-03 - LD Düsseldorf - HP v. Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology et al.

If the Court has informed a defendant of an application for provisional measures and has invited this defendant to lodge an objection to the application within a specified time period, but the defendant does not lodge an objection within the time period set by the Court or decides not to substantiate its objection, the application for provisional measures can be decided based on the applicant’s submissions by means of a regular order in the PI proceedings (follow up to UPC_CFI_213/2025 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 10 July 2025, headnote 1 and mn. 213 - 214 – Aesculap v Shanghai International Holding).

This is the headnoted Düsseldorf order on what happens when a defendant invited to object under R. 209.1(a) RoP lodges nothing or declines to substantiate its objection: the application is decided on the applicant's submissions by a regular PI order, not by a decision by default. The division gave two reasons — R. 205 et seq. RoP provide no default route in that scenario, and the set-aside right of R. 356 RoP would conflict with the applicant's interest in effective enforcement — and added that an applicant's alternative request for a default decision does not displace the application it supplements, because Art. 76(1) UPCA binds the court to the requests without prescribing the form of the decision. On the merits both patents were literally realised on summary examination, and validity was reasonably certain in the absence of any defence argument. Alongside the injunctions the division ordered disclosure of the origin and distribution channels and the identity of everyone involved in production or distribution, as a provisional measure justified by urgent interest and proportionality.