Aesculap v Shanghai International Holding Corporation (Europe) (CFI, 30 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 30 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_213/2025, App_33426/2025), the presiding judge of the Düsseldorf Local Division panel, acting as judge-rapporteur, attached a penalty payment of up to EUR 30,000 per day to the information obligation imposed on 10 July 2025 on Shanghai International Holding Corporation (Europe), in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Aesculap AG (EP 2 892 442). The order explains how the time limit for complying with an information obligation is set where the main decision does not provide one.

Question

Where the main order sets no time limit for providing information, who sets it, and is a prior threat of penalty payments required?

Decision

The time limit, running from the notification under Rule 118.8 RoP, should in principle be included in the request and in the main decision, so that the defendant knows how long it has (paragraph 12). Failing that, it is for the claimant to set it in its notice of intention to enforce. The one-month period chosen by Aesculap is proportionate (paragraph 13). A fresh information order with a court-set time limit is therefore unnecessary and that request is refused (paragraph 14). The claimant has a legitimate interest in a threat of penalty payments, even though the Mannheim Local Division considers it not strictly required and the Court of Appeal has not ruled on the point (paragraphs 15 and 16). The daily cap allows the defendant’s conduct to be taken into account when the penalty is fixed under Rule 354.4 RoP (paragraph 17).

Key points for practice

• Claimants should include a time limit for information in their requests on the merits or for provisional measures. Failing that, they set it themselves in their Rule 118.8 RoP notice.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 67(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 7.2, 118.1, 118.8, 354.3 and 354.4

Case law cited

Belkin v Koninklijke Philips, Court of Appeal, 30 May 2025, Fujifilm v Kodak, Mannheim Local Division, 23 July 2025, Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 11 December 2023

Related decisions

• Aesculap v Shanghai International, 10 July 2025, provisional measures order whose enforcement is backed by the penalty.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.