2025-08-05 - LD Düsseldorf - igus v. Whale Technology (Shanghai) - UPC_CFI_318/2025

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_318/2025
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Art:
Application Order
Parteien:
igus GmbH v. Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Kernaussage: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a default judgment against a Chinese defendant that had been served with the statement of claim at its stand at the Hannover Messe and never filed a statement of defence.

2025-08-05 - LD Düsseldorf - igus v. Whale Technology (Shanghai) - UPC_CFI_318/2025
🗂️Nur Fallakte
Eine Entscheidung, mehrere Registereinträge

Das Gericht hat diese Verfahren zusammen entschieden und dasselbe Dokument in jedem davon eingestellt. Jeder Eintrag unten ist ein eigener vollwertiger Registereintrag.

  • UPC_CFI_318/2025 Text zuerst hier gespeichert
  • UPC_CFI_318/2025 (Sie lesen diesen hier)
🏛️Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division• Application Order
📅2025-08-05
🔢UPC_CFI_318/2025
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
igus GmbH
André SABELLEK
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
⚖️Infringement
🌐German
🤖🇬🇧

notable
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a default judgment against a Chinese defendant that had been served with the statement of claim at its stand at the Hannover Messe and never filed a statement of defence. The division confirmed that service at a trade fair stand is proper under R. 271.5(a) RoP because such a stand can be a temporary place of business where deliveries are advertised, and held that Art. 37(1) of the Statute permits a default judgment for failure to reply to an initiating document even though the Rules of Procedure do not expressly provide for that form of default, the Statute prevailing over the Rules. On the merits it accepted the claimant's conclusive pleading of literal infringement of a unitary-effect patent and granted the full catalogue of remedies. On information, the division separated three bases: the Art. 67 UPCA information claim itself, the further information reasonably needed for enforcement under Art. 68(3)(a) and (b) UPCA with R. 191 sentence 1 alternative 2 RoP, and the production of supporting documents under Art. 67(1) UPCA so that the patentee can verify the accuracy of the information it receives. A redaction right for confidential detail combined with an auditor reservation was held to balance the patentee's interest in accurate information against the infringer's legitimate confidentiality interests.

Inoffiziell

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren