Opens in a new tab

Brita v Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance (CFI, 5 May 2026)

Date5 May 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionHamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication for provisional measures
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1881/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_1881/2025
PartiesBrita SE v. Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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

In an order of 5 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_1881/2025), the Hamburg Local Division orders Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance, which failed to comply with the information obligation in the provisional measures order of 9 December 2025 obtained by Brita (EP 2 131 940 B1), to pay a penalty of EUR 1,000 per day since 31 March 2026, and threatens a further penalty of EUR 1,500 per day for non-compliance after 5 May 2026. The order recalls that a penalty may be imposed only up to the amount previously announced, including in provisional measures proceedings.

Question

On what conditions and to what extent can a penalty be imposed (Rule 354.3 RoP) for failure to comply with an information obligation ordered on a provisional basis?

Decision

Imposing a penalty requires a prior threat, even though the first sentence of Rule 118.8 RoP does not apply to provisional measures. The order of 9 December 2025 contained none, the threat was made on 17 March 2026, at EUR 1,000 per day. Non-compliance is presumed culpable, and the length of the delay and the lack of cooperation justify that maximum. A step-up to EUR 1,500 per day can be ordered only after a fresh threat, and any future increase requires a new application. The respondent bears 90% of the costs, the value of the proceedings is set at EUR 50,000.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 118.8, 354.3 and 354.4
Case law cited
Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 30 May 2025, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Application for a preliminary injunction, Order to preserve evidence (UPC).

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: The Launch Letter: How Generics and Biosimilars Should Write to Avoid UPC Urgency (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_1881/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 9 December 2025 Brita v Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance (CFI, 9 December 2025) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_1881/2025

    La division locale de Hambourg interdit au fabricant chinois, sans l'avoir entendu, la commercialisation des cartouches contrefaisantes dans quatorze États, ordonne leur remise et une information, sans garantie de Brita.

  2. 5 May 2026 Brita v Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance (CFI, 5 May 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_1881/2025
  3. 15 July 2026 Brita v Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance (CFI, 15 July 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_1881/2025

    Des astreintes de 97 500 euros (violation de l'interdiction par publicité en ligne) et de 105 000 euros (défaut d'information) sont infligées, et une astreinte de 2 000 euros par jour est annoncée pour l'avenir.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application for provisional measures
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La défenderesse doit une astreinte de 1 000 euros par jour depuis le 31 mars 2026 et se voit menacée d'une astreinte supplémentaire de 1 500 euros par jour, le surplus de la demande est rejeté.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 131 940Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Brita v Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance (CFI, 15 July 2026) · Brita v Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance (CFI, 9 December 2025) · Brita v Fileder Filter Systems Spolka (CFI, 6 November 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.