2026-10-27 - LD The Hague - Versuni Holding et al. v. Dreame - UPC-CFI-0002594/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-CFI-0002594/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Versuni Holding B.V., Versuni Netherlands B.V. v. Dreame Technology Netherlands B.V., Dreame International (HongKong) Limited
Kernaussage: In a joint order on two parallel applications for provisional measures between the same parties and against the same product, the Hague Local Division granted an injunction and an information order on one patent and dismissed the application on the other.
2026-10-27 - LD The Hague - Versuni Holding et al.
v.
Dreame - UPC-CFI-0002594/2026
routine
In a joint order on two parallel applications for provisional measures between the same parties and against the same product, the Hague Local Division granted an injunction and an information order on one patent and dismissed the application on the other. Applying the NanoString 'more likely than not' standard under R. 211.2 RoP and Art. 62(4) UPCA, the Court found the first patent likely valid, holding that a claimed numerical range cannot be disregarded as arbitrary where the patent ties a technical effect to it, and found infringement on the basis of an unrebutted third-party test report, a counter-report measuring a different parameter being discarded. On the second patent, a 'sealing attachment' feature was construed as requiring a structural seal enveloping the inlets, which the applicant failed to show. The urgency objection failed because the applicant was entitled to wait for a test purchase from within the UPC territory and its full technical analysis before filing, and the request for security for enforcement was rejected as unsubstantiated.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
vorläufig ·Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Preliminarily survivedArt. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Provisional assessment: the novelty attack on EP 3 169 210 over CA855 was considered more likely than not to fail, as CA855 (a medical liquid removal system) does not disclose a 'surface cleaning device' correctly construed [48]-[51], [60]-[62].”
Inventive Step
Preliminarily survivedArt. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Provisional assessment: the inventive step attacks starting from FR001, alone or combined with CA855 or WO281, failed; the claimed pore-size range was not arbitrary because the patent ties a technical effect to it, and no pointer led the skilled person to it [63]-[75].”