igus v Whale Technology (CFI, 5 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 5 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_318/2025, ACT_16202/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division (Presiding Judge Thomas, Judge Schumacher as judge rapporteur, and Judge Agergaard) issued a decision by default against Whale Technology (Shanghai), which had filed no statement of defence, and found infringement of igus’ European patent with unitary effect EP 3 912 243 B1, concerning a cable protection guide for cleanroom use. The decision deserves attention for two reasons: it accepts service of the statement of claim at a trade fair stand, and it shows that a foreign defendant who fails to appear may face, within a few months, the full range of remedies under the UPCA in seventeen States.

Facts and procedure

Whale Technology displayed the accused « CPY » product at the Hannover Messe (31 March to 4 April 2025) and sent visitors an electronic catalogue issued in the name of an affiliated company. igus had its statement of claim served on 3 April 2025 at the defendant’s stand and requested a decision by default in the statement itself and again on 14 July 2025 (paragraph 15). The three-month period for the defence expired on 3 July 2025 without any response (paragraph 18).

The applicable law

A decision by default requires a request by the claimant, failure to file a defence within the time limit and expiry of that period (Art. 37(1) of the Statute, Rule 355 RoP, paragraph 14). Rule 271.5(a) RoP allows service at any place in a Contracting Member State where the company has a permanent or temporary place of business. The remedies rest on Arts 25(a), 63, 64, 67, 68 and 69 UPCA.

Question

Can a Chinese company be validly served at its exhibition stand and, absent any defence, can the UPC grant by default all the remedies sought?

Decision

A trade fair stand is a temporary place of business where the company advertises its deliveries there, which is the normal case absent indications to the contrary. Sending the catalogue to visitors confirms it (paragraphs 16 and 17). That the Rules of Procedure do not expressly cover this kind of default is immaterial, since Art. 37(1) of the Statute provides for it (paragraph 18). On the merits, the product literally embodies every feature of claim 1 (paragraphs 27 to 34), and both the exhibit and the catalogue amount to an offer in Germany (paragraph 35). The division grants an injunction for seventeen States, recall and definitive removal from the channels of commerce, disclosure of information and documents subject to verification by a sworn auditor, and a declaration of liability for damages since 20 March 2024 (paragraphs 38 to 44). It awards EUR 26,000 as interim reimbursement of costs under Rule 150.2 RoP, although the claim had relied on Rule 119 RoP, in view of the fees incurred and the EUR 11,000 in court fees paid (paragraphs 45 to 47). Penalty payments are set (up to EUR 10,000 per product and EUR 30,000 per day), the value in dispute is fixed at EUR 500,000 and the defendant bears the costs.

Key points for practice

• A trade fair held in a Contracting Member State gives the patentee an effective place of service on a defendant based outside the EU (paragraphs 16 and 17).
• Failure to file a defence opens the way to a reasoned decision by default, which still assesses infringement feature by feature (paragraphs 27 to 34).
• Citing the wrong legal basis for an interim cost reimbursement does not prevent it being granted under Rule 150.2 RoP (paragraph 47).
• Practical point: a patentee who spots a foreign infringer at a trade fair should have its statement of claim ready in advance so that it can be served at the stand while the fair is running.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25(a), 63, 64, 67, 68, 69 and 82, Statute, Art. 37(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 23, 118, 119, 150.2, 271.5(a), 354 and 355

Case law cited

i-mop v ARCORA, Munich Local Division, 11 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_193/2024), M-A-S v Altech, Düsseldorf Local Division, order of 17 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_316/2024), Panasonic v OPPO, Mannheim Local Division, 22 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_210/2023), Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_16/2024), Kaldewei v Bette, Düsseldorf Local Division, 3 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_7/2023), Grundfos v Hefei Xinhu, Düsseldorf Local Division, 8 May 2025 (UPC_CFI_11/2024), Yellow Sphere v Knaus Tabbert, Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_50/2024).

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.