Brita v Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance (CFI, 9 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 9 December 2025, made without hearing the respondent four days after the application was filed, the Hamburg Local Division prohibited the Chinese manufacturer Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance from marketing in fourteen States filter cartridges that fall within Brita’s EP 2 131 940 B1. It also ordered surrender of the products to a bailiff, disclosure of information and interim costs of EUR 34,700, without requiring security from the applicant. The order shows how quickly a patentee can move from the distributor to the manufacturer where literal infringement is not disputed and the manufacturer, once warned, gives no undertaking backed by a penalty.

Facts and procedure

On 6 November 2025, in separate proceedings (UPC_CFI_1443/2025), the same division had ordered the Polish company Fileder Filter Systems to stop marketing the products. Fileder then named the respondent as the manufacturer. Brita sent Ningbo Blue Pluser a warning letter on 25 November 2025 with a deadline of 4 December, on 2 December the respondent replied by email that it would stop manufacturing, without any penalty-backed undertaking. The German distributor, by contrast, had given such an undertaking. The products are filter cartridges for food and beverage use sold as « SPECTRUM Serve ». The application was filed on 5 December 2025.

The applicable law

Provisional measures are governed by Article 62 UPCA and Rules 206 to 213, the local division’s jurisdiction follows from Articles 32(1)(c) and 33(1)(a) UPCA. Measures without hearing the respondent rest on Rules 206.3 and 212, the information order on Article 67 UPCA and the penalty on Rule 354.3. Security from the applicant is governed by Article 62(5) UPCA and Rule 211.5.

Question

Can the patentee obtain provisional measures without a hearing against the China-based manufacturer identified by a distributor already enjoined, and must it provide security?

Decision

The division accepted jurisdiction, distribution in Europe, including Germany, being sufficient. Brita, resulting from the conversion of Brita GmbH into Brita AG and then Brita SE, is the sole proprietor. Validity was considered sufficiently certain: no opposition had been filed and neither the respondent nor the German distributor had challenged it. Infringement was found on a summary basis: the respondent supplies the German distributor and the Polish company, an act within Article 25(a), and all features of claim 1 are literally present, which was not disputed. Urgency was established, Brita having learned of the sales on 20 November 2025, and irreparable harm was found, the products being directly substitutable imitations. Proceeding without a hearing was justified by the warning letter that produced no undertaking. No security was required, since infringement was clear, validity sufficiently certain and the respondent had been warned. The measures apply in fourteen States, with penalties of up to EUR 250,000 per infringement, and the information is due within three weeks. The applicant was excused from filing German translations of three English exhibits.

Key points for practice

• A bare statement of intent to stop manufacturing, without a penalty-backed undertaking, does not remove the risk of repetition.
• An unanswered prior warning letter justifies measures without a hearing and may help to dispense the applicant from providing security.
• The absence of any opposition or validity challenge by the distributors and the manufacturer is enough, in summary proceedings, to treat validity as sufficiently certain.
• Practical point: an order against a distributor can serve as a springboard to identify the manufacturer and obtain swift measures against it, provided the patentee acts within weeks.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 32, 33, 34, 60, 62 and 67

Rules of Procedure

Rules 206, 209, 211, 212, 213 and 354

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 9(3)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 7(2), 35 and 72b

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, Brita v Fileder Filter Systems, Hamburg Local Division, 6 November 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.