Opens in a new tab

Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 30 October 2024)

Date30 October 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_59050/2024 · ORD_59195/2024
PartiesOrtovox 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

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
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 466 498
Search device for avalanche victims and method for operating a search device for avalanche victims
recorded proprietor: Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 10 other decision(s): Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel (CFI, 14 January 2025) · Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, ORD_7954/2025, 22 Apr · Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 27 September 2024) · Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel (CoA, ORD_44387/2024, 25 Se · Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 5 August 2024) · Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 15 April 2024) · Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel (CFI, 9 April 2024) · Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 25 January 2024)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.