Brita v Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance (CFI, 15 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 15 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_1881/2025, EP 2 131 940), the Hamburg Local Division imposed two penalty payments on Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance, which did not respond, for failing to comply with its order of 9 December 2025 obtained by Brita: EUR 97,500 for breach of the injunction (item I) and EUR 105,000 for failing to provide information on origin and distribution channels (item IV) from 6 May to 15 July 2026, payable to the Court within two weeks of service. A further EUR 2,000 per day of continued non-compliance is threatened. The order shows penalties being stepped up against an uncooperative defendant based outside the EU.

Question

How should penalty payments be set for breach of an injunction through online advertising and for persistent failure to provide information, and must an increase be preceded by a threat?

Decision

A penalty under Rule 354.3 RoP must be preceded by a threat, including in provisional measures proceedings (following Kodak v Fujifilm). The threats of 17 March and 5 May 2026 covered EUR 1,000 and EUR 1,500 per day, so each step up requires a prior threat. With no explanation offered, culpable non-compliance is presumed and the maximum threatened rate of EUR 1,500 per day applies. Online advertising aimed at, among others, German customers breaches the injunction. The penalty must be proportionate to the importance of the order (Art. 82(4) UPCA), the Division sets EUR 500 per day over 195 days from service, the defendant not having shown that the offer was new. The costs of the penalty proceedings are borne by the defendant and their value is set at EUR 100,000.

Key points for practice

• Online advertising of the product concerned, accessible to and aimed at customers in a covered State, is enough to breach the injunction.
• Practical point: to obtain increasing penalties, the applicant must seek a fresh quantified threat at each stage, as the Court cannot exceed the amount previously announced.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 82(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.8, 354.3 and 354.4

Case law cited

Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 30 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_845/2024), Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_699/2025), myStromer v Revolt Zycling, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 October 2023 (UPC_CFI_177/2023), 10x Genomics v NanoString, Munich Local Division, 5 December 2023 (UPC_CFI_2/2023), Occlutech v Lepu Medical, Hamburg Local Division (UPC_CFI_553/2025)

Related decisions

• Brita v Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance, 9 December 2025, order being enforced.
• Brita v Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance, 5 May 2026, first penalty payment and threat of EUR 1,500 per day.

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.