Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 30 October 2024)
| Date | 30 October 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_59050/2024 · ORD_59195/2024 |
| Parties | Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 30 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_16/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, in Ortovox’s infringement action against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH based on EP 3 466 498, joined with a counterclaim for revocation, refused Ortovox’s request for a further exchange of written pleadings. The claimant wished to introduce a new product, the voice-controlled « Barryvox S » avalanche transceiver, discovered shortly before the close of the written procedure. The order shows that Rule 36 RoP does not allow a late extension of the dispute to a new product where the hearing is near.
Question
Should the judge-rapporteur allow further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP to address a product discovered at the end of the written procedure?
Decision
As regards the « Barryvox S 2 », Ortovox is already protected by the provisional measures ordered on 11 December 2023 and 9 April 2024 and upheld on appeal on 25 September 2024, any breach is a matter for enforcement. The « Barryvox S » was not, at least expressly, the subject of either the summary proceedings or the main action, and the fragmentary submissions did not allow it to be assessed. Further pleadings would also require a reply from the defendants, given their right to be heard, followed by time to prepare, which was incompatible with the hearing scheduled for 26 November 2024. The request, including the auxiliary request, was dismissed.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a product discovered late calls for a new action or, if covered by an existing order, enforcement proceedings, rather than a request for further pleadings shortly before the hearing.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rule 36
- Case law cited
- Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 11 December 2023, Mammut v Ortovox, Düsseldorf Local Division, 9 April 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, UPC_CoA_182/2024.
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.
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
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
Parties
- claimantOrtovox Sportartikel GmbH14 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande d'échange de mémoires supplémentaires visant un nouveau produit, le « Barryvox S », est rejetée, faute de temps avant l'audience du 26 novembre 2024 et d'éléments suffisants.
- 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 3 466 498mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel (CFI, 9 April 2024) cited in this record
- Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 11 December 2023) cited in this record
- Dolby International v Beko Germany (CFI, 14 August 2025) cites this decision
- Grundfos Holding v Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump (CFI, 26 February 2025) cites this decision
- Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac Ekco (CFI, 4 March 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.