2025-11-28 - LD Düsseldorf - HP v. Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology et al. - UPC_CFI_449/2025

ENGLISH: If the Court has deemed the steps taken so far to be sufficient for proper service (R. 275.2 RoP) of the application for provisional measures, including a R. 209.1(a) RoP order, which invites the Defendant to lodge an Objection within a certain time period, and if the Defendant does not file an Objection within the time period set by the Court, 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 and Order of 3 September 2025, headnote – Hewlett-Packard v Rentmeister).

The Düsseldorf Local Division completed the pair of orders in this case by granting provisional measures against the Chinese supplier, whom the Chinese Central Authority had certified as unservable at the address given. The division had deemed the steps already taken to be good service under R. 275.2 RoP, effective from the date of that order and published on the UPC website; when no objection followed, it decided on the applicant's submissions by a regular PI order. It added a new limb to its own line of authority: Art. 37 UPCS does not preclude a regular order, because that provision speaks of 'actions' rather than applications for provisional measures and, in any event, permits a default decision without excluding other forms of decision. Both patents were literally realised on summary examination and validity was reasonably certain. The interim award of costs failed because the applicant never quantified it, and the costs of the application were split equally between the two defendants following the Court of Appeal in Sumi Agro v Syngenta.