Koninklijke Philips v Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology (CFI, 9 September 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 9 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_516/2024, ORD_50890/2024), the Hamburg Local Division (S. Klepsch, presiding and judge-rapporteur, S. Schilling, A. Kupecz) granted, without hearing the respondent, Koninklijke Philips N.V.’s application for provisional measures against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. (« Oclean » brand) on EP 3 197 316, which concerns an electric toothbrush giving feedback to the user. It prohibited the offering and marketing of the toothbrushes in the Contracting Member States and ordered the products exhibited at the IFA 2024 trade fair in Berlin to be handed over.

The order, issued on the very day the application was filed, shows how quickly the UPC can act against a trade-fair exhibition, and holds that no security is needed where the respondent has already undertaken to cease the acts concerned.

Facts and procedure

On 22 August 2024 Philips sent a warning letter to the respondent and its Lithuanian distributors, enclosing a draft application. On 29 August 2024 the respondent gave a penalty-backed undertaking to cease and desist covering claim 1, naming Hamburg as exclusive venue, and confirmed it would not attend IFA 2024. After the demand was extended to the « X Pro Digital » model, it confirmed on 4 September 2024 that this model had been withdrawn. On 6 September 2024 Philips nonetheless found the X Ultra S and X Pro Digital models on the respondent’s stand. An application filed with the Munich Local Division on 8 September was withdrawn on 9 September, the day of filing in Hamburg.

The applicable law

Provisional measures are based on Art. 62 UPCA, and seizure and delivery up of products on Art. 62(3) UPCA and Rule 211.1(b) RoP. Rule 209.2(b) RoP requires account to be taken of any unreasonable delay, and Rule 212.1 RoP allows an order without hearing the defendant where any delay would cause irreparable harm. Penalty payments are governed by Rule 354 RoP and security by Rule 211.5 RoP.

Question

Are the conditions for ex parte provisional measures met against an exhibitor showing at a trade fair products covered by its own undertaking to cease, and should security be required?

Decision

The division finds literal and direct infringement of claim 1, which the respondent never disputed, having instead given an undertaking to cease (section I). Urgency is established: IFA is the world’s largest consumer electronics fair and Philips acted without delay after its finding of 6 September (section II). Irreparable harm is likely given direct competition and the commercial importance of the fair (section III). On validity, the patent was not opposed, parallel patents of equivalent scope were granted in Japan, the United States and China, and no relevant prior art was raised before the dispute (section IV).

The order prohibits, in the UPCA Contracting Member States, offering, placing on the market, importing and possessing the claimed system, subject to penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per infringement, and orders the products on the IFA stand to be handed over to a bailiff pending a final decision on destruction or agreement between the parties. No security is required, since the undertaking already given rules out any compensable loss (section V). Provisional reimbursement of costs is refused, as no quantified request was made and costs are in principle decided in the main action. Failure to mention the Munich application is treated as an oversight (section VI).

Key points for practice

• An application may be granted ex parte and on the same day where infringing products are exhibited at a trade fair.
• A pre-litigation undertaking to cease supports both the likelihood of infringement and dispensing with security.
• Provisional reimbursement of costs under Rule 211.1(d) RoP requires a quantified request.
• Practical point: a patentee holding an undertaking to cease should monitor trade fairs, as a breach found on site allows immediate action without security.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 25, 60, 62, 73(2)(a) and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 13, 118, 206, 209, 211, 212, 213 and 354

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.