Hewlett-Packard Development v Andreas Rentmeister (CFI, 17 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 17 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_515/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division granted Hewlett-Packard Development provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K., which runs the toneroffice.de shop, based on EP 3 835 965 concerning logic circuitry for print cartridges. The injunction covers Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. The order is of interest for its form: as the defendant had settled and declined to defend, the division ruled by a regular order rather than a decision by default.

Facts and procedure

Rentmeister offered remanufactured HP 924 and 937 cartridges, Shenzhen Moan Technology, the second defendant based in China, offered similar products, but service on it had not been completed (paragraphs 8 and 13). HP discovered the offers on 10 April 2025, received laboratory samples on 5 May, completed its analysis on 28 May and filed its application on 13 June 2025 (paragraphs 67 and 68). On 23 July 2025 Rentmeister notified a settlement and stated it would not defend against motions 1, 2, 3 and 5, HP withdrew motion 4, for an interim costs award, and requested a decision by default against Shenzhen Moan (paragraph 11).

The applicable law

Provisional measures fall under Art. 62 UPCA and Rules 206 et seq. RoP, the division having to be satisfied with a sufficient degree of certainty of infringement and validity (Rule 211.2 RoP). Direct literal infringement falls under Art. 25(a) UPCA. Penalty payments rest on Rules 354.3 and 354.4 RoP, and the obligation to start the merits action on Art. 60(8) and 62(5) UPCA and Rule 213.1 RoP.

Question

Where the defendant declines to defend, must the division rule by default, and are the conditions for provisional measures met against it?

Decision

The application can be decided on the applicant’s submissions by a regular order: a defendant who declines the invitation to defend is not entitled to the advantages of a decision by default, and the request for a default decision supplements the application without replacing it (paragraphs 15 to 17). Entitlement is presumed (paragraph 19). The test logs and expert opinion filed show that every feature of claim 13 is met (paragraphs 20 to 52). The burden on invalidity lies with the defendant. Absent any challenge or revocation action, validity is sufficiently certain (paragraphs 53 to 56). HP acted diligently once it had the necessary facts (paragraphs 62 to 68). Direct competition, price undercutting and loss of market share justify the measure (paragraphs 69 to 75). Rentmeister must provide information on origin and distribution channels within four weeks (paragraph 78), subject to penalties of up to EUR 250,000 per day for the injunction and EUR 100,000 per day for the information (paragraphs 79 and 80). No security is required (paragraphs 81 to 83). Costs are reserved until the order concerning Shenzhen Moan.

Key points for practice

• A defendant who settles and declines to defend in provisional measures proceedings faces a regular order made on the applicant’s submissions alone.
• The burden of pleading and proving invalidity lies with the defendant at the provisional measures stage.
• Some two months between discovering the offers and filing, spent on technical analysis, is not undue delay.
• Practical point: where co-defendants are based outside the EU, the patentee can obtain immediate relief against the defendant already reached, with the costs decision deferred.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25(a), 47(1), 60(8), 62, 73(2)(a), 76(1) and 82

Statute of the Court

Art. 37(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 118.8, 158.2, 206, 209, 211, 213, 220.1(c), 224.2(b), 354, 355 and 356

Case law cited

Court of Appeal: NanoString v 10x Genomics, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Biolitec v Light Guide Optics, 24 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_540/2024), Abbott v Sibio, 14 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_382/2024), Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva, 13 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_446/2025), Mammut v Ortovox, 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024), Insulet v EOFlow, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024), Sumi Agro v Syngenta (UPC_CoA_523/2024), first instance: Aesculap v Shanghai International, 10 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_213/2025), 10x Genomics v NanoString, 19 September 2023 (UPC_CFI_2/2023), Dyson v Dreame, 14 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_387/2025), Hewlett-Packard v Rentmeister, Düsseldorf Local Division, 3 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_449/2025), Valeo v Magna, 31 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_347/2024)

Related decisions

• Hewlett-Packard Development v Andreas Rentmeister, 11 November 2025, later decision in the same provisional measures proceedings.
• Hewlett-Packard Development v Andreas Rentmeister, 19 December 2025, later decision in the same provisional measures proceedings.

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.