i-mop v ARCORA International (CFI, 11 October 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 11 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_193/2024, ACT_22922/2024), the Munich Local Division (panel 2: U. Voß, presiding judge and rapporteur, D. Voß, M. Mlakar) issued a decision by default against ARCORA International, which had not lodged a Statement of Defence. It found infringement of the unitary patent EP 3 760 094 B1 and ordered an injunction, information, recall and destruction, together with provisional damages of EUR 50,000. The decision is of practical interest because it bases a default judgment for failure to file a defence directly on Art. 37 of the Statute, while still testing each request against the uncontested submissions.

Facts and procedure

i-mop GmbH, proprietor of the patent for a hand-guided floor treatment device, brought an infringement action on 25 April 2024 against the SCR40BM floor scrubber, marketed as « Blancus 40 » and later « Tiger 40 ». The action was served on 13 May 2024. No Statement of Defence was lodged within the three-month period. By orders of 16 and 31 August 2024, the division pointed out the consequences of default and allowed ten days for comments on the amended requests. On 30 August 2024 the claimant amended its requests and partially withdrew (definitive removal from the channels of commerce and publication). The defendant did not respond. Oppositions filed at the EPO in November 2023 were pending, but the division drew no consequence from them.

The applicable law

The division holds that Art. 37 of the Statute of the Court is a sufficient basis for a decision by default where the defendant fails to lodge a defence, even though the Rules of Procedure do not expressly cover that situation. If there were a conflict, the Statute would prevail under the preamble to the Rules, and Rule 355.3 RoP itself presupposes this possibility. On the merits, the division applies Arts. 25, 63, 64, 67 and 68 UPCA, Rule 119 RoP for provisional damages, and Rule 118.5 RoP with Art. 69 UPCA for costs.

Question

May a decision by default be given where the defendant has lodged no Statement of Defence, and are the requests well founded on the claimant’s uncontested submissions alone?

Decision

The division grants the request for a decision by default: the action was duly served, the time limit had expired and the defendant, having been warned, had about four months. In exercising its discretion, it takes into account that the parties had agreed out of court to seek such a decision.

On the merits, the uncontested submissions establish literal infringement of claim 1 by offering and placing on the market in Germany, the device having been shown at the CMS trade fair in Berlin in September 2023. The division grants an injunction for the territory of the Agreement, backed by a penalty payment of up to EUR 3,000 per product, which it treats as a ceiling, and orders information within 45 days, delivery up for destruction and recall, relying on Kaldewei v Bette. It awards EUR 50,000 in provisional damages on the claimant’s plausible and uncontested estimate and declares the obligation to pay compensation. The partial withdrawal is permitted and costs are split 90% to the defendant and 10% to the claimant. The decision notes that an application to set aside may be lodged within one month of service (Rule 356 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Failure to lodge a defence opens the way to a decision by default under Art. 37 of the Statute, once the defendant has been expressly warned of the consequences.
• Rather than simply rubber-stamping the requests, the division checks infringement and the justification for each remedy against the uncontested facts.
• A partial withdrawal of some of the remedies sought leaves part of the costs with the claimant.
• Practical point: a claimant seeking provisional damages by default should quantify prices, volumes and the costs of proceedings, since the division accepts a plausible and uncontested estimate.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 25, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69 and 82

Statute of the Court

Art. 37

Rules of Procedure

Rules 13, 23, 24, 27, 118, 119, 170, 171, 190, 191, 263, 265, 271, 354, 355 and 356

National law

Section 33 PatG, Art. II Section 1 IntPatÜG

Case law cited

Franz Kaldewei v Bette, Düsseldorf Local Division, 3 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_7/2023), Court of Appeal, order of 4 June 2024, UPC_CoA_183/2024, Munich Local Division, 13 August 2024, UPC_CFI_513/2023

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.