2026-08-10 - LD Hamburg - CYBEX v. NUNA International et al. - UPC-CFI-0001321/2026

1. The fact that the applicant relies, as its main request, on a claim set that is narrower than the claims as granted in the patent in suit, namely a combination of Claims 1 and 2 of the patent in suit, does not preclude the ordering of preliminary measures. 2. If, in proceedings regarding preliminary measures, auxiliary requests are submitted for the first time in the reply brief and concern the addition of a feature that is not, in this form, the subject matter of a dependent claim, the defendants would have had only a very short period of time to prepare their defense, particularly with regard to the issue of the patent's validity, thereby significantly restricting their ability to defend themselves. Such auxiliary requests shall therefore not be admitted. 1. Der Umstand, dass die Antragstellerin als Hauptantrag eine gegenüber der erteilten Fassung des Antragspatents eingeschränkte Anspruchsfassung – nämlich eine Kombination der Ansprüche 1 und 2 des Antragspatents – geltend macht, steht der Anordnung einstweiliger Maßnahmen nicht entgegen. 2. Werden Hilfsanträge im Eilverfahren erst in der Replik gestellt und betreffen die Hinzufügung eines Merkmals, welches in dieser Form nicht Gegenstand eines abhängigen Anspruchs ist, wäre den Antragsgegnerinnen eine Verteidigung insbesondere mit Blick auf die Frage des Rechtsbestandes nur in einem sehr kurzen Zeitraum möglich gewesen, was ihre Verteidigungsmöglichkeit erheblich einschränkt. Solche Hilfsanträge können daher nicht zugelassen werden.

The Hamburg Local Division granted provisional measures on a claim version narrower than the patent as granted, holding that asserting an unentered combination of granted claims 1 and 2 does not preclude an order under R. 211.2 RoP, which refers to the patent in question and not to the patent as granted (following CoA Onward v Niche). Because that version was never examined in the grant proceedings there is no prima facie presumption of validity, so the Court had to satisfy itself positively that the asserted version is more likely valid than not; four novelty attacks, an inventive-step attack and an added-matter attack all failed. Auxiliary requests raised for the first time in the reply, adding a feature that is not as such the subject of a dependent claim, were refused under R. 263.2 RoP because they would have left the defendants only a very short time to defend on validity. Direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA and indirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA were found with sufficient certainty; for the separately marketed components the Court imposed a notice duty rather than a blanket prohibition, since those components can also be used lawfully. Urgency was affirmed one month after grant of the patent, and neither security under R. 211.5 RoP nor a security permitting the defendants to avert enforcement was ordered.