Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin (CFI, 18 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 18 June 2026 (UPC_CFI_1382/2025), the Milan Local Division, on a request for review by Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin and Resosport, revokes in its entirety the ex parte order for provisional measures granted on 5 November 2025 to Cardo Systems and enforced during the EICMA trade fair in Milan, on the basis of unitary patent EP 4 240 194 for a fastening device for helmets. Neither literal nor equivalent infringement is more likely than not. The order matters in practice for its definition of the scope of review (Rules 197.3 and 212 RoP): all validity and infringement defences may be argued, without an ex tunc limit, whereas urgency and candour are assessed as at the date of the application. It also awards interim costs of EUR 28,000 to the successful defendants.

Facts and procedure

On 31 October 2025 Cardo filed an ex parte application against the Reso Neo and Reso Pro products, exhibited at EICMA (4 to 9 November 2025). The order of 5 November 2025, made by a single judge, prohibited making, offering, placing on the market, using, importing and storing the products in the UPC Member States, ordered delivery up of the exhibited products and set security at EUR 100,000 (Rule 211.5 RoP). The respondents applied for review on 5 December 2025, relying on invalidity (added matter, inventive step), non-infringement and the balance of interests. The oral hearing took place on 12 May 2026.

The applicable law

Provisional measures require the court to be satisfied with a sufficient degree of certainty that the patent is valid and infringed (Art. 62 UPCA, Rule 211.2 RoP). Review of an ex parte order is governed by Rules 197.3 and 212 RoP. In the division’s view, the review covers all grounds raised: certainty as to validity and infringement is assessed without an ex tunc limit, the balance of interests may take account of facts after the order, whereas urgency and the duty of candour are assessed as at the filing of the application, the manner of enforcement may ground compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP (section 4). Claims are construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. The applicant’s statements during grant, while not binding, shed light on the skilled person’s understanding (section 6).

Question

Do the Reso fastening devices reproduce features 1.8 to 1.10 of claim 1, concerning the snap-lock, the securing element and a detaching direction orthogonal to the connection direction?

Decision

No. In the Reso products, the plunger operated by the button is merely a means of actuating the lock and not a separate securing element within feature 1.9, moreover, the functional unit is detached in the connection direction rather than orthogonally to it, contrary to feature 1.10 (section 7). The equivalence argument, based on achieving the same result, is held too vague, inconsistent with the claimed orthogonality and harmful to legal certainty for third parties. As the requirements are cumulative, failure on infringement is enough and the others are not examined (section 8).

The order of 5 November 2025 is revoked in its entirety. The value of the case is set at EUR 500,000. Cardo is to pay the respondents EUR 28,000 in interim costs, half of the applicable ceiling (section 10). The request for release of the full security on account of reputational harm is rejected for lack of concrete evidence, three photographs on a social network not being enough. The security is released as to EUR 28,000 to the respondents and EUR 72,000 to Cardo, and the seized goods are returned, these measures taking effect once the order becomes final (section 11).

Key points for practice

• Review of an ex parte order is a full debate on validity and infringement, without being limited to the position at the date of the order (section 4).
• Statements made during grant do not bind the court but inform claim construction (section 6).
• A defendant that obtains revocation of the order may be awarded interim costs paid out of the security, up to half of the ceiling (sections 10 and 11).
• Practical point: compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP requires concrete evidence of the harm caused by enforcement, beyond a few online posts.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 60(5), 62 and 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158, 197.3, 206.3, 211.1(d), 211.2, 211.5, 212 and 213.2

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and Protocol on its interpretation

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025, Occlutech v Lepu Medical, Düsseldorf Local Division, 31 October 2025, Genentech v Organon, Brussels Local Division, 12 November 2025, Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025, Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare, The Hague Local Division, 22 October 2025, Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics, Court of Appeal, 18 February 2026, other decisions cited by number only, including UPC_CoA_1/2024 (13 May 2024) and UPC_CFI_317/2024 (Lisbon Local Division, 15 October 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.