CYBEX v NUNA International (CFI, 10 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 10 August 2026 (UPC_CFI_1321/2026), the Hamburg Local Division rules on CYBEX GmbH’s application for provisional measures against NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH based on the unitary patent EP 4 242 056 (a child seat system with a base fitted to the vehicle seat). The application is admissible and largely well founded (paragraph 34): infringement by the « base curv » base combined with several seat shells is more likely than not, and the validity of the combination of claims 1 and 2 is sufficiently certain. The Division granted an injunction for eighteen States, in the form of a prohibition of the system and, for components sold separately, a duty to warn, together with information and penalty payments, without security. The defendants bear 90% of the costs and an interim award of costs of EUR 56,000.

The order deserves attention mainly for a point of procedure: auxiliary requests filed for the first time in the reply are inadmissible in provisional proceedings, as the defendant would not have enough time to prepare its validity defence.

Facts and procedure

CYBEX GmbH, registered proprietor of EP 4 242 056, whose unitary effect took effect on 18 March 2026, filed its application on 20 April 2026 against the « base curv » base and the « cari next », « pipa lite », « pipa next », « arra flex » and « todl next » seat shells. It sought injunctions in eighteen Member States for direct and indirect infringement. After the objection, a reply containing auxiliary requests and a rejoinder, the oral hearing took place on 26 June 2026, submissions of 17 and 23 June 2026 were disregarded as late (paragraph 31). The application was withdrawn for the « todl lite » shell (paragraph 71).

The applicable law

The panel bases its jurisdiction on Art. 31 UPCA and Arts 7(2) and 71b(1) of Regulation 1215/2012 (paragraphs 35 to 38). Provisional measures are governed by Art. 62 UPCA and Rules 206 and 211 RoP, infringement must be more likely than not (paragraph 47). Direct and indirect infringement are assessed under Arts 25(a) and 26 UPCA, and validity under Arts 54 and 56 EPC.

Question

May the proprietor base provisional measures on a combination of claims and file auxiliary requests in its reply, and are infringement and validity sufficiently established?

Decision

Relying on a narrower claim set (claims 1 and 2 combined) does not preclude provisional measures (paragraph 41). However, auxiliary requests filed for the first time in the reply are inadmissible: the defendants would have had only a very short time to prepare their validity defence, which would be significantly restricted (paragraphs 43 to 45).

Direct literal infringement by the « base curv » system combined with the shells concerned is found (paragraphs 50 to 87), as is indirect infringement, the components being offered and supplied in the territories with knowledge (paragraphs 88 to 95). Validity is sufficiently certain, although no presumption attaches to the restricted claim set (paragraphs 97 to 99): none of the prior art relied on anticipates (paragraphs 100 to 138), inventive step is accepted (paragraphs 139 to 157) and added matter is rejected (paragraphs 158 to 172).

The applicant could not be expected to await the main action, even though the system has been on the market since early 2025: the products are durable and cover a child’s first four years, so families already equipped are lost to the applicant, while the defendants remain free to sell their « base next » system (paragraphs 173 to 175). Urgency was established, the patent having been granted only on 18 March 2026 and the application filed about a month later (paragraphs 176 to 178). The Division prohibited the system in eighteen States (Art. 34 UPCA) and, for indirect infringement, imposed only a duty to warn, since the seat shells and the base can be used separately without infringement. The « arra next » shell, which is not compatible with the base, is excluded (paragraphs 179 to 182). Information on origin, quantities and third parties involved since 18 March 2026 was ordered within four weeks (paragraphs 183 to 185). Penalties may reach EUR 250,000 per infringement and EUR 2,500 per day of delay for the information (paragraphs 186 to 189). The value was set at EUR 550,000, an interim award of costs of EUR 56,000, half the ceiling, was granted, and costs were split 90% to the defendants and 10% to the applicant (paragraphs 190 to 194). Neither security, for want of substantiated harm or of any risk of the applicant’s insolvency, nor permission to continue against security was granted (paragraphs 195 to 201).

Key points for practice

• In provisional proceedings, the applicant must file its auxiliary requests with the application. If first filed in the reply, they are not admitted (paragraphs 43 to 45).
• No presumption of validity attaches to a combination of claims not granted as such, but that does not preclude provisional measures (paragraphs 41 and 98).
• Where components of a system can be used without infringement, the order against indirect infringement may take the form of a duty to warn rather than an outright prohibition (paragraphs 175 and 181).
• Practical point: components of a system sold separately may support indirect infringement where they are offered and supplied in the territories concerned with knowledge of their intended use (paragraphs 88 to 95).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25(a), 26, 31, 47(1), 34, 60(7), 62(1), (2) and (5), 63, 67 and 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 36, 150.2, 152.2, 206.1, 206.2(c), 209.2, 211.1 to 211.5, 263.2 and 354.3

European Patent Convention

Arts 54(1) and (3), 56 and 69

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 7(2) and 71b(1)

Case law cited

Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, SharkNinja v Dyson, Court of Appeal, 3 December 2024, Onward v Niche, Court of Appeal, 27 March 2026, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva, Court of Appeal, 13 August 2025, Align v Angelalign, Düsseldorf Local Division, 12 February 2026, Biolitec v Light Guide, Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_540/2024), Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024), Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2024)

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.