Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 25 January 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 25 January 2024 (UPC_CFI_452/2023), the Düsseldorf Local Division, seized by Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH with a request for review of provisional measures ordered ex parte in favour of Ortovox on EP 3 466 498, asked the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate a technically qualified judge with experience in the patent’s field (IPC A63B). The order accepts that such a judge may be added of the panel’s own motion in summary proceedings, although the Rules only address this for main proceedings.

Question

May a panel hearing summary proceedings add a technically qualified judge of its own motion, given that Rule 34 RoP only refers to main proceedings?

Decision

Provisional measures require the validity of the patent to be sufficiently certain (Art. 62(4) UPCA and Rule 211.2 RoP), so the panel must assess whether the objections raised create well-founded doubts. Art. 8(5) UPCA allows any panel, including in summary proceedings, to add a technically qualified judge of its own motion after hearing the parties. This was justified here, since the defendants’ review request focused largely on validity. Moreover, if the division later hears a counterclaim for revocation in the main action, such a judge will be mandatory (Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA). The President was therefore asked to allocate the judge under Art. 18(3) UPCA.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a request for review of an ex parte order centred on validity may lead to a technical judge joining the panel at the summary stage, strengthening the technical scrutiny of validity.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 8(5), 18(3), 33(1)(a) and 62(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 34, 197.3, 197.4, 211.2 and 212.3

Case law cited

Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 11 December 2023, Munich Local Division, UPC_CFI_2/2023, Helsinki Local Division, UPC_CFI_214/2023.

Related decisions

• Mammut v Ortovox, 9 April 2024, later decision on the request for review.

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.