2026-05-27 - LD Düsseldorf - Cybex Retail et al. v. Wonderland Nurserygoods - UPC_CFI_334/2025

ENGLISH: 1. The criteria set out by the Local Division The Hague form a coherent whole and are, as such, suitable for examining patent infringement by equivalent means. The present case does not give rise to any grounds for applying a different standard. 2. In order to determine technical equivalence, the claimant must not focus solely on the objective task of the patent in suit. Instead, it must demonstrate the function of each exchanged feature in achieving this objective and explain why the variation essentially performs the same function. 3. In general, it is not obvious to a skilled person how to apply the equivalent element if a complete redesign of the claimed device is required.

In a combined infringement action and revocation counterclaim concerning EP 1 905 615 (a swivel locking device for stroller wheels), the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed both the action and the counterclaim. On validity, the patent survived: applying the Court of Appeal's added-matter principles it found features 1.9/1.10 directly and unambiguously derivable from para. [0014] of the application (the 'preferably' features being optional and independently disclosed, so no inadmissible intermediate generalisation); the sufficiency objection fell away under the adopted claim construction; claim 1 was novel over MB7, MB9, MB2/MB2a and MB12; and inventive step was not disproven because the defendants relied on the EPO Problem-Solution-Approach and failed to identify a pointer or reasonable expectation of success under the Court of Appeal's 'would-not-could' framework (MB14 being excluded as published on the validly claimed priority date). On infringement, the court held there was no literal infringement — the over-moulded 'stem' is in a fixed rotational relationship with the wheel bearing assembly and therefore part of it, not the seat, so features 1.9/1.10 were absent and there was no distinguishable clasping mechanism in the cavity. Crucially, since the Court of Appeal has not yet ruled on equivalence criteria, the Panel adopted the Local Division The Hague's four-question equivalence test and found no infringement by equivalents: the claimant failed technical equivalence (it did not show the function of each exchanged feature, reducing the invention to a mere 'secured connection'), failed the fair-protection limb (applying the equivalent required a complete redesign rearranging several components, which is not obvious to the skilled person), and failed legal certainty.