HL Display v Black Sheep Retail Products (CFI, ORD_28264/2025, 21 August 2025)

Date	21 August 2025
Court	CFI
Division	The Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_26908/2025 · ORD_28264/2025
Parties	Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 21 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_386/2024 and UPC_CFI_610/2024), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division dismissed the request by Black Sheep Retail Products, defendant to HL Display’s infringement action (EP 2 432 351), to deposit three physical objects. The request, filed on 5 June 2025, was meant to illustrate positions taken in the rejoinder of 20 February 2025, but no reason was given why the objects had not been filed with it. The order extends the front-loaded logic of the written procedure to physical exhibits.

Question

May a party deposit physical objects several months after the brief they are meant to illustrate, without explaining the delay?

Decision

No. The judge found the request late and noted that no explanation was offered as to why the objects could not have been filed with the rejoinder. The request was rejected. The order cites no provision.

Key points for practice

Samples and physical objects are treated like any other exhibit: they should accompany the brief they support, or their late production must be justified.

Provisions applied

Provisions cited: none cited in the order

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantBlack Sheep Retail Products B.V.5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de dépôt de trois objets physiques est rejetée comme tardive, faute de justification du retard par rapport à la duplique.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 432 351 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 432 351`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 5 other decision(s): HL Display v Black Sheep Retail Products (CFI, 10 October 2025) · Black Sheep Retail Products v HL Display (CoA, 6 March 2026) · Black Sheep Retail Products v HL Display (CoA, 6 November 2025) · HL Display v Black Sheep Retail Products (CFI, ORD_35239/2025, 21 Augu · HL Display v Black Sheep Retail Products (CFI, 15 August 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.