Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite (CFI, 5 November 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 5 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_643/2024, ACT_59213/2024, ORD_59913/2024), the single judge of the Milan Local Division (S. Granata), without hearing the respondents, prohibited Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology from making, offering, placing on the market, using, importing or storing in the eighteen UPC Member States the Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX products, including their Pro, Pro Max and Plus versions, under Cardo Systems’ EP 4 240 194, and ordered their delivery up to the bailiff at the EICMA fair.

The order matters on two counts: it grants an ex parte injunction, not a mere seizure, against companies based outside the UPC States, but makes enforcement conditional on EUR 100,000 security because the presumption of validity of a newly granted patent is weak.

Facts and procedure

Cardo Systems, an Israeli company, owns EP 4 240 194 for a fastening device for protective headgear, whose grant was published on 9 October 2024. It made test purchases of the Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX products on Amazon.de and Amazon.it, delivered on 29 October 2024, the Pro, Pro Max and Plus versions were launched on the ASMAX websites around 2 or 3 November 2024, ahead of the EICMA fair in Milan (5 to 10 November). The application, filed on 4 November 2024, relies on claim 1 and several dependent claims. A single judge was appointed on grounds of extreme urgency (Rule 208.2) and no hearing was held (paragraphs 16 to 20 and 24).

The applicable law

International jurisdiction rests on Art. 31 UPCA and Regulation 1215/2012, the action falls under Art. 32(1)(c), and the Milan Local Division is competent on account of the alleged acts in Italy (Art. 33(1)(a)) (paragraphs 12 to 15). The applicant must show, at least as more likely than not, its entitlement to sue (Art. 47), the validity of the patent and infringement (Rule 211.2), on a summary assessment (paragraphs 21 to 23). Arts 62(1) and (3) and 82 UPCA and Rules 211.1 and 354 provide the basis for the injunction, delivery up, penalty payments and security.

Question

Can an ex parte injunction be granted against manufacturers and distributors based outside the UPC States on the occasion of a trade fair, on the basis of a patent granted a few weeks earlier, and on what terms?

Decision

Hearing the respondents would have caused unreasonable delay before the fair, and they are based outside the UPC States (paragraph 18). The applicant did not delay, given the dates of the test purchases and of the launch of the new versions (paragraph 24). On validity, the EPO identified only three prior art documents and a comparable US patent was granted (paragraph 25). Infringement is sufficiently shown, although the order notes that claim 12 is proven only for the F1-ASMAX (paragraphs 26 and 28). The balance of interests favours the applicant, given markedly lower prices, long product life cycles and the respondents’ low economic risk (paragraph 27).

Delivery up is ordered because of the risk of shipment and sales outside official webshops (paragraph 29). Penalty payments are set at EUR 1,000 per infringement, each product counting as one infringement, capped at EUR 500,000 (paragraph 31). As validity is only thinly supported, the patent being recent and having faced no opposition or revocation action, enforcement is conditional on EUR 100,000 security (rather than the EUR 150,000 offered), to be provided within 10 days of service, failing which enforcement is suspended and seized goods returned (paragraph 32). Service takes place at the stand, in English, and execution should preferably avoid public opening hours (paragraph 37). Proceedings on the merits must be started within 31 calendar days or 20 working days of service. Costs are left to the merits.

Key points for practice

• An ex parte injunction covering all UPC States can be obtained at a trade fair against companies based outside those States.
• A newly granted patent carries only a weak presumption of validity, offset by security as a condition of enforcement.
• Penalty payments may be set per product, subject to an overall cap.
• Practical point: dated test purchases and evidence of a recent product launch establish urgency and support an ex parte application.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 31, 32(1)(c), 33(1)(a), 41, 42, 47, 60(5), 62(1) to (3), 73, 82(1) and (4) and 83

Rules of Procedure

Rules 197.3, 197.4, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210.1, 211, 212.3, 220.1, 224.1(b), 274, 275 and 354

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 7(2), 71, 71a and 71b

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Lisbon Local Division, 15 October 2024, UPC_CFI_317/2024.

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.