myStromer v Revolt Zycling (CFI, 22 November 2023)

Date	22 November 2023
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Procedural Order
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_260/2023
Registry reference	ORD_586970/2023 · UPC_CFI_260/2023
Parties	myStromer AG v. Revolt Zycling AG, George Merachtsakis

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 22 November 2023 (UPC_CFI_260/2023, ACT_552758/2023, ORD_586970/2023), the Düsseldorf Local Division (judges Thomas, rapporteur, Thom and Kupecz), in myStromer AG’s action against Revolt Zycling AG and George Merachtsakis for infringement of EP 2 546 134, decided to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, and instructed the judge-rapporteur to ask the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate a technically qualified judge. The order accepts an early choice under Art. 33(3) UPCA.

Question

May the panel decide how to deal with the counterclaim for revocation before the written procedure closes, and on what criteria does it choose to hear both actions together?

Decision

Although Rule 37.1 RoP provides for a decision as soon as practicable after the close of the written procedure, Rule 37.2 RoP allows an earlier decision, provided the panel takes the pleadings into account and hears the parties, who raised no objection. An early decision is justified by the court’s staffing in its first months, some judges sitting only part-time or case by case: it allows the involvement of the technically qualified judge to be scheduled early. Hearing both actions together is efficient and lets a single panel construe the patent consistently for validity and infringement, all the more so as the technology is of moderate complexity and the validity attacks are manageable in number.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a local division may settle the Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA option very early to secure the composition of the panel. Parties should state their position from their first pleadings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 33(3)(a)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 37.1 and 37.2

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

UPC_CFI_260/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantmyStromer AG6 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantRevolt Zycling AG6 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantGeorge MerachtsakisFollow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Procedural Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division locale jugera ensemble l'action en contrefaçon et la demande reconventionnelle en nullité, et sollicite dès à présent l'affectation d'un juge techniquement qualifié.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 546 134 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 546 134`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): myStromer v Revolt Zycling (CFI, 18 October 2023) · myStromer v Revolt Zycling (CFI, 3 July 2023) · myStromer v Revolt Zycling (CFI, 30 June 2023) · myStromer v Revolt Zycling (CFI, ORD_526778/2023, 22 June 2023)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.