Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite (CFI, UPC_CFI_766/2024, 14 September 2026)

Date	14 September 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Milan (IT) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_766/2024
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_766/2024
Parties	Cardo Systems Ltd. v. Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co. Ltd.; Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited
Language	English

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

10 July 2026 : Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite (CFI, 10 July 2026) UPC_CFI_766/2024

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 4 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 14 September 2026 published on 29 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_766/2024), the Milan Local Division grants Cardo Systems’ application to rectify its decision by default of 10 July 2026 against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology. The injunction in the operative part mistakenly referred to EP 4242194 instead of EP 4 240 194, and the heading contained inaccuracies regarding the claimant’s representatives and the second defendant’s address. These being obvious slips, the Division corrects them under Rule 353. It holds that the one-month period runs in respect of all parties and has not expired, since the decision has not yet been served, and that the application need not be served on defendants who have not entered an appearance (Copenhagen Local Division, UPC_CFI_80/2024, 19 February 2025).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rule 353

Related decisions

Milan Local Division, 10 July 2026, Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite: decision by default rectified

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 4 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: English from the language of proceedings
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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Parties not recorded.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division locale de Milan rectifie plusieurs erreurs matérielles de sa décision par défaut du 10 juillet 2026, notamment le numéro du brevet dans le dispositif d’interdiction, avant sa signification aux défenderesses chinoise et hongkongaise.
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

EP 4242194 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 4 240 194 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite (CFI, 10 July 2026) cited in this record

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 4242194`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
`EP 4 240 194`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite (CFI, 10 July 2026) · Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin (CFI, 18 June 2026) · Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite (CFI, 12 December 2025) · Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite (CFI, 5 November 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.