Hewlett-Packard Development v Andreas Rentmeister e.K. (CFI, 19 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 19 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_515/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division granted provisional measures against Shenzhen Moan Technology, the second defendant, in favour of Hewlett-Packard Development Company on the basis of claim 13 of EP 3 835 965 (logic circuitry for a replaceable print apparatus component). The measures cover HP 924 and 937 compatible cartridges sold, among other channels, on Amazon, in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. As the Chinese defendant lodged no objection, the panel issued a regular order rather than a default decision and did not make enforcement conditional on security. The order is of interest to proprietors facing online sellers established outside the EU who do not appear.

Facts and procedure

The application was filed on 13 June 2025. The first defendant, Andreas Rentmeister e.K., settled and stated that it would not defend itself. An order of 17 October 2025 granted the measures against it (paragraphs 12 to 14). Service on Shenzhen Moan through the Chinese channel went unanswered and was deemed effected by an order of 11 November 2025 under Rule 275.2 (paragraphs 15 and 16). Shenzhen Moan lodged no objection and stated that it would not challenge the application. On 12 December 2025 HP withdrew its request for interim costs against it (paragraph 19).

The applicable law

The application falls under Article 62 UPCA and Rules 206 and 211 of the Rules of Procedure. The division must be satisfied with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is entitled, that the patent is valid and that it is infringed, and then weighs urgency, necessity and the balance of interests. Security under Rule 211.5 is discretionary (paragraphs 87 to 89).

Question

May provisional measures be granted by a regular order against a defendant established outside the EU that does not oppose the application, and on what conditions?

Decision

A default decision is not provided for in this situation: a defendant that declines to lodge an objection should not gain its advantages, notably the possibility of having it set aside, which would run counter to the proprietor’s interest in effective enforcement, the division therefore decided on the requests as submitted (Article 76(1) UPCA) (paragraphs 21 and 22). Literal infringement of claim 13 was more likely than not, based on test logs, voltage measurements and an expert opinion filed by HP, including for the feature requiring no reference to the clock signal (paragraphs 25 and 34 to 57). Validity was sufficiently certain, as there was no challenge and no revocation action (paragraphs 58 to 61). HP acted without delay, having learnt of the products on 10 April 2025 and completed its analysis on 8 June 2025 (paragraphs 67 to 73). Direct competition, price undercutting and market erosion justified the measures (paragraphs 62 to 66 and 74 to 80). The injunction comes with an information order within four weeks and capped penalties (up to EUR 1,000 per product or EUR 250,000 per day, and EUR 100,000 per day for the information) (paragraphs 82 to 86). No security was imposed and costs were split equally between the two defendants.

Key points for practice

• Failure to object does not lead to a default decision, which the defendant could have set aside, but to a regular provisional measures order (paragraphs 21 and 22).
• The technical evidence filed (tests, measurements, expert opinion) is sufficient where the defendant does not contest it.
• The division dispensed the applicant from security where the defendant declared that it would not contest (paragraphs 87 to 89).
• Practical point: against a China-based seller that does not respond, Rule 275.2 allows service to be deemed effected, followed by an order immediately enforceable in several States.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25(a), Art. 47(1), Art. 60(8), Art. 62 and Art. 76(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 206, 209, 211, 213.1, 275.2, 354 and 356

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Biolitec v Light Guide Optics Germany, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2025, Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024), Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva Portugal, Court of Appeal, 13 August 2025, Aesculap v Shanghai International Holding, 10 July 2025, Dyson v Dreame International, 14 August 2025, Hewlett-Packard Development v Zhuhai Ouguan Electronic, 28 November 2025, F. Hoffmann-La Roche v A. Menarini Diagnostics, 5 December 2025

Related decisions

• Hewlett-Packard Development v Shenzhen Moan, 17 October 2025, earlier order granting the measures against the first defendant.
• Hewlett-Packard Development v Andreas Rentmeister, 11 November 2025, order deeming service effected (Rule 275.2).

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.