Brita v Fileder Filter Systems Spolka (CFI, 6 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 6 November 2025 (UPC_CFI_1443/2025), given without hearing the defendant on the day after the application was filed, the Hamburg Local Division granted Brita SE’s application for provisional measures against Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o., a Polish supplier of filter cartridges (EP 2 131 940, water treatment device). The injunction covers fourteen states and comes with custody of the products, an information order, penalty payments, an interim costs award and security of EUR 50,000.

The order shows how quickly the UPC can act where literal infringement is not disputed and the defendant, having been warned, stays silent. It also confirms that a measure ordered ex parte normally requires security, even where infringement appears clear.

Facts and procedure

Brita sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Fileder group’s German distributor on 8 September 2025, on 17 October 2025 the distributor gave a penalty-backed undertaking and named the defendant as its supplier. The defendant, warned on 29 October 2025 with a deadline of 4 November, did not respond. The application was filed on 5 November 2025 and the order issued on 6 November. The products concerned are the « SPECTRUM Serve » cartridges for the food service sector.

The applicable law

The division based its jurisdiction on Art. 31, Art. 32(1)(c) and Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA and, for international jurisdiction, on Arts 7(2) and 35 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. Provisional measures require sufficient certainty that the applicant is entitled to sue, that the patent is valid and that it is being or is about to be infringed (Art. 62 UPCA, Rules 209 and 211, Art. 9(3) of Directive 2004/48). Rules 206.3 and 212.1 allow the court to decide without hearing the defendant, and Rule 211.5 governs security.

Question

Were the conditions for a provisional injunction granted without hearing the defendant met, and could the injunction be combined with custody of the products, an information order and an interim costs award?

Decision

Brita SE, the result of the conversion of Brita GmbH, is the sole proprietor of the patent, even if the registers do not show this everywhere. The defendant, which supplies the German distributor, performs acts covered by Art. 25(a) UPCA. Features 1 to 6 of the claim are present, which was not disputed. Validity is sufficiently certain for the purposes of Rule 209.2(a): the patent was granted in 2011, no opposition was filed, and there were no pre-action objections or protective letter. Urgency was established, Brita having learned of the sales on 17 October 2025 (Rule 211.4).

Waiting for the main action is unreasonable given directly substitutable imitations, and the injunction extends to all states where the patent has effect (Art. 34 UPCA). The unheeded warning letter justified deciding ex parte. Custody prevents further products from entering the market. The information order, available in summary proceedings (Art. 67 UPCA, Rule 211.1), must be complied with within three weeks. Penalty payments may reach EUR 250,000 per infringement and the interim costs award is set at EUR 34,700. Nothing justified dispensing Brita from security under Rule 211.5, set at EUR 50,000, since the assessment remains provisional and the measure weighs heavily on the defendant. The reasons are not numbered.

Key points for practice

• Silence after a warning letter, together with the distributor’s undertaking, weighs in favour of deciding without hearing the defendant.
• The absence of any opposition, pre-action objection or protective letter may be enough for validity to be treated as sufficiently certain at the provisional stage.
• An order to disclose the origin and distribution channels may be made at the provisional measures stage.
• Practical point: a defendant receiving a warning letter should respond or file a protective letter, otherwise, an injunction covering every state where the patent has effect may be granted within a day.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 31 to 34, 47, 60, 62, 67 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 197.3, 206.3, 209, 211, 212, 213.1, 354 and 355

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 7(2) and 35

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 9(3)

Case law cited

Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024), Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, MED-EL v Nurotron, Hamburg Local Division, 11 June 2025, Aesculap v Shanghai International, Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 June 2025

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.