Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite (CFI, 10 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision by default of 10 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_766/2024), the Milan Local Division (Judges Perrotti, presiding, Zana, rapporteur, and Granata) holds that Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology, which did not appear, directly infringe CARDO Systems’ unitary patent EP 4 240 194 (fastening device for protective headgear). It grants an injunction in the Contracting Member States, recall and destruction of the products, publication of the decision, an interim award of damages of EUR 56,000 and an interim award of costs of EUR 28,000.

The decision confirms that default does not mean the claims are granted automatically: the claimant must establish sufficient facts, although the court does not examine validity of its own motion. It also shows how service in China is handled where the central authority raises a purely formal objection.

Facts and procedure

On 5 November 2024 CARDO obtained provisional measures without hearing the defendants. They were served at the EICMA trade fair in Milan and were not appealed. The main action was served on Hong Kong Yiheng under the Hague Convention on 29 May 2025. For Shenzhen Asmax, two attempts failed (16 January and 26 May 2025), the Chinese central authority requiring the wording « Hong Kong, China ». By order of 12 December 2025 the judge-rapporteur held that the steps taken constituted service (paragraphs 12 to 15). Neither defendant lodged a defence in time, and CARDO applied for a decision by default on 5 May 2026 (paragraph 9).

The applicable law

The decision applies Rule 355 (decision by default), read with Art. 54 UPCA on the burden of proof, and Rule 274.1(a)(ii) on service outside the Contracting Member States. The remedies rest on Arts. 25, 63, 64, 67, 68 and 80 UPCA, the penalty payment on Art. 63(4) UPCA and Rule 354.3, the interim award of damages on Rule 119 and costs on Art. 69 UPCA.

Question

On what conditions may a local division give a decision by default on the merits against defendants established in China, and how far does it review infringement and validity?

Decision

The division identifies three conditions: proper service, failure to meet a time limit and facts sufficient to justify the remedies sought (paragraph 11). The Chinese authority’s objection is held to be purely formal and the steps taken amount to service (paragraph 14). Default is a neutral procedural circumstance: Rule 171.2 on uncontested facts does not apply, and Rule 355.2, read with Art. 54 UPCA, rules out granting the claims automatically (paragraphs 18 and 19). Validity is not examined, since the court cannot raise invalidity of its own motion. The division relies on the CJEU judgment in Phoenix Contact (C-44/21, paragraph 41) (paragraph 22).

A feature-by-feature analysis leads to a finding that several claims, including claim 1, are infringed by the Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX models, the « Plus », « Pro » and « Pro Max » variants are held to be technically identical on the evidence filed (paragraphs 23 to 51). The division notes continued sales on Amazon.com after the provisional measures order (paragraph 52). The injunction, recall and destruction are found proportionate and immediately enforceable without security (paragraphs 54 to 60). The penalty payment is set at EUR 1,000 per infringement, capped at EUR 500,000, and EUR 5,000 per day of delay in publication. Awareness of the infringement, inferred from deliberate copying and continued sales, supports the interim award of damages, the final amount being left to proceedings under Rule 125 (paragraphs 61 to 64). The value of the action is set at EUR 500,000, the interim award of costs is limited to 50% of the EUR 56,000 ceiling (paragraphs 65 to 69). Accounting information is ordered under Art. 67 UPCA (paragraphs 70 and 71).

Key points for practice

• Default does not relieve the claimant of proving infringement: the division carries out a full analysis of the claims on the documents.
• Validity of the patent is not reviewed of the court’s own motion in a decision by default.
• Continued sales after a provisional measures order weigh in the assessment of awareness and in the interim award of damages.
• Practical point: where a central authority blocks service on a formal objection, the claimant may ask the judge-rapporteur for an order confirming that the steps already taken amount to valid service.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 25, 54, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 73, 80 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.8, 119, 125, 171.2, 191, 274, 354 and 355

Case law cited

NEC v TCL, Court of Appeal, 29 July 2024, Court of Appeal, 27 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_69/2024), Meril, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_457/2024, 458/2024 and 464/2024), Dexcom v Abbott, Paris Local Division, 30 January 2024, Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers, Milan Local Division, 4 November 2024, Morello Forni Italia v Gastroteam Abbe, Milan Local Division, 19 November 2025, Milan Local Division, 8 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_513/2024)

Related decisions

• Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite, 5 November 2024, provisional measures order made without hearing the defendants.
• Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite, 12 December 2025, judge-rapporteur’s order on the validity of service.

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.