beMatrix v Yaham Recience (CFI, 25 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 25 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_692/2026), the Düsseldorf Local Division granted beMatrix NV provisional measures without hearing the defendant, Yaham Recience Technology, on the basis of EP 3 757 442 B1, which concerns a display module for a temporary exhibition stand. The « Sytaq RA » LED screen system, exhibited at the EuroShop fair in Düsseldorf until 26 February 2026, was prohibited in Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Sweden, subject to penalty payments, delivery to a bailiff and an interim award of costs of EUR 33,400, enforcement being conditional on security of EUR 500,000. A rectification order of the same date corrected a clerical error in the operative part. The order shows ex parte relief at work against a product shown at a trade fair.

Facts and procedure

The patentee, beMatrix, first saw the attacked product at ISE 2026 in Barcelona (3 to 6 February 2026), where the patent is not in force, and then found it exhibited at EuroShop by the defendant, a Shenzhen company distributed in Germany by LEDitgo Videowall Germany GmbH (paragraphs 9 and 10). The parties had been in contact in 2023 and 2025 about a different product range (paragraph 8). On 22 February 2026, beMatrix staff spoke with the defendant’s chief executive, who did not stop exhibiting the product (paragraph 11). beMatrix sought, without a hearing of the defendant, an injunction based on claims 1, 13 and 14, penalty payments, delivery up, information and an interim award of costs (paragraph 12).

The applicable law

Provisional measures fall under Art. 62 UPCA and Rules 209 and 211, Rule 212.1 allows the court to decide without hearing the defendant, in which case Rule 213.2 normally calls for security. The division recalled that the balancing of interests takes account of the time factor and that irreparable harm is relevant but not a necessary condition (paragraph 21).

Question

Are the conditions for ex parte provisional measures met where the allegedly infringing product is exhibited at a trade fair about to close, and on what terms should enforcement proceed?

Decision

The admissible application is well founded except for the information order (paragraph 13). The required degree of certainty means that it must be at least more likely than not that the applicant is entitled to sue and that the patent is infringed (paragraphs 14 and 15). The Düsseldorf Local Division is competent, the infringement taking place at a trade fair in Düsseldorf (Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, paragraph 16), beMatrix, as registered proprietor, is entitled to act, its change of legal form not having altered its legal status (paragraph 17). The product reproduces claim 1, in particular a mounting hole whose centre of gravity lies 31 mm from an edge of the frame, as well as claims 13 and 14, the photographs taken at EuroShop matching those from ISE (paragraph 18). The division then held that it is not more likely than not that the patent is invalid: it has been in force for four years, has not been challenged and no ground of invalidity is apparent (paragraph 19). The balance of interests favours beMatrix (paragraph 20). There was no unreasonable delay, as the application was filed in the month of discovery, and urgency follows from the fair closing on 26 February 2026 (paragraphs 22 and 23). Direct competition during a commercially decisive fair justifies the measures, whereas a temporary ban is merely a commercial disadvantage for the defendant (paragraph 24). A hearing would have pushed the decision past the fair, and the defendant already knew of the application and the patent, so the purpose of a hearing had been achieved (paragraph 25). The injunction was granted on claims 1, 13 and 14 (paragraph 26). The information request was rejected, as beMatrix had not shown why it could not await the merits (paragraph 27). Delivery to a bailiff was ordered (Rule 211.1(b), paragraph 28) and penalty payments allowed (paragraph 29). Security, normally required ex parte, was set by reference to the value in dispute stated by beMatrix, with a fourteen-day deadline (paragraphs 30 to 32). No costs decision is made in ex parte proceedings, but the interim award of EUR 33,400 was granted (paragraphs 33 to 36).

Key points for practice

• The trade fair supports both urgency and the absence of a hearing, the defendant having been told of the application before filing (paragraphs 23 and 25).
• An information request sits poorly with ex parte proceedings and needs specific justification (paragraph 27).
• An interim award of costs may be made ex parte even though no costs decision is given (paragraphs 33 to 36).
• Practical point: warning the competitor before filing does not bar ex parte relief and may instead make hearing it unnecessary (paragraph 25).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25(a), Art. 32(1)(c), Art. 33(1)(a), Art. 47(1), Art. 60(6) and (8), Art. 62, Art. 69, Art. 73(2)(a) and Art. 82(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 118.5, 150.2, 197.3, 209, 211, 212, 213, 220.1(c), 224.2(b), 276.1, 352.1, 353, 354.3 and 355

Case law cited

Biolitec v Light Guide Optics, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2025, Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024), Aesculap v Shanghai International Holding, Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 July 2025, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2024), Roche v Menarini, Düsseldorf Local Division, 5 December 2025, Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Magna v Valeo, Düsseldorf Local Division, 31 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_347/2024)

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.