Hewlett-Packard Development Company v Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology (CFI, 28 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 28 November 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division largely granted Hewlett-Packard Development Company’s application for provisional measures against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology, based on EP 2 826 630 and EP 3 530 469 (ink cartridges). The Chinese defendant, deemed validly served, filed nothing.

The practical interest lies in the procedural route: where the defendant does not respond to the invitation under Rule 209.1(a), the division decides by a regular order on the applicant’s submissions rather than by a decision by default under Rule 355.1(a) (paragraphs 25 to 28). The defaulting defendant therefore does not get the Rule 356 route to set the decision aside.

Facts and procedure

The application was filed on 28 May 2025 against two defendants. The second, a German distributor, settled and a separate order was made against it. Service on the first defendant through the Chinese Central Authority failed, the certificate stating that no such company existed at the address, and voluntary acceptance was not obtained. On 16 October 2025 the division held that the steps taken amounted to good service under Rule 275.2 (paragraphs 18 to 20). No objection was received (paragraph 21). The products at issue are refilled cartridges compatible with HP 937, sold mainly on Amazon in ten Member States.

The applicable law

The measures were granted under Art. 62(1) and 25(a) UPCA and Rule 209.2. Validity must be sufficiently certain: that is lacking only where invalidity is more likely than not, with the burden of presenting the facts on the defendant (paragraph 49). Urgency is assessed under Rules 209.1(b) and 211.4 and runs from when the applicant knew or should have known the facts required by Rule 206.2(d) (paragraphs 69 to 72). Penalty payments rest on Rule 354.3, with caps allowing adjustment to the infringer’s conduct (Rule 354.4, paragraphs 86 and 87).

Question

Where a defendant invited to object remains silent, must the division issue a decision by default, and are the conditions for provisional measures met?

Decision

The division ruled by a regular order. The framework of Rules 205 et seq. does not cover this situation, a regular order fits the balance of interests and a decision by default, open to being set aside, would undermine swift enforcement (paragraph 26). The parallel request for a decision by default does not stand in the way, given Art. 76(1) UPCA (paragraph 27), and Art. 37 of the Statute does not exclude this route (paragraph 28).

On the merits, every feature of claim 1 of each patent is literally met (paragraphs 38 to 47 and 54 to 61). Validity is sufficiently certain, as no arguments were raised and no revocation action is pending (paragraphs 48 to 51, 62 and 63). The applicant did not delay: offers found on 10 April 2025, evidence ready on 21 May, application filed on 28 May (paragraphs 74 and 75). Necessity follows from direct competition, price undercutting and the risk of reputational harm (paragraphs 76 to 82).

The order prohibits the acts concerned in ten States for the first patent and in four for the second, requires information on origin and distribution channels within four weeks and provides for capped penalty payments (up to EUR 1,000 per product and EUR 250,000 per day). Interim costs were refused for want of quantification (paragraph 88), costs were split equally between the two defendants (paragraph 89). No security was ordered.

Key points for practice

• A defendant’s silence after the Rule 209.1(a) invitation allows a regular order on the applicant’s submissions alone, without a decision by default (paragraphs 25 to 28).
• Rule 275.2 can overcome failed service in China where the steps taken are held sufficient (paragraph 20).
• An applicant seeking interim costs must quantify them, or the request fails (paragraph 88).
• Practical point: a precise record of the timeline of discovery, sample purchase and expert testing helps to establish urgency (paragraphs 74 and 75).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25(a), 60(8), 62(1), (2) and (5), and 76(1)

Statute of the Court

Art. 37

Rules of Procedure

Rules 206.2, 209, 211, 213, 275.2, 354.3, 354.4, 355.1 and 356

Case law cited

Biolitec v Light Guide Optics Germany, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2025, Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva, Court of Appeal, 13 August 2025, Aesculap v Shanghai International, Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 July 2025, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025

Related decisions

• Hewlett-Packard Development v Zhuhai ouguan Electronic, 16 October 2025, earlier order on service (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.