2026-06-30 - LD Düsseldorf - Partec v. Lenovo - UPC-CFI-0002258/2026

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected an application for provisional measures in its entirety, deciding without hearing the defendants because a dismissal does not prejudice them. Applying the Court of Appeal's framework in Biolitec (UPC_CoA_540/2024), the panel held that provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA and R. 211.1 RoP are only available where, given the nature of the case, proceedings on the merits cannot be awaited — and that the requirement bites even harder where, as here, an infringement action between the same parties on the same patent is already pending before the same division (R. 206.1 RoP). The decisive substantive point concerns the standard of substantiation: an applicant who bases necessity on the ongoing, irreparable erosion of market share must give a detailed and substantiated account of the relevant market situation as it stood before the allegedly infringing product entered the market, and must show that the losses are not compensable in damages. Direct competition between the parties was accepted as a relevant factor but held insufficient on its own. The panel added a status-quo consideration: because the defendants were already on the market with a predecessor embodiment which the Munich Local Division had held non-infringing on the merits (UPC_CFI_180/2025, under appeal), an injunction against the successor embodiment would alter rather than preserve the established market situation. On the ex parte request, neither a risk of destruction of evidence nor irreparable harm from delay was shown, and the technical complexity of the case was itself a reason to hear the defendants. Costs were imposed on the applicant by analogy with R. 118.5 RoP and the value in dispute set at EUR 1,000,000, being two thirds of the value of corresponding merits proceedings. The operative part additionally records at point 3 that the appeal is 'granted' — in context most plausibly a grant of leave to appeal (R. 220.2 RoP), but the wording of the English text is ambiguous.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Website

Aktenzeichen: UPC-CFI-0002258/2026