Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 15 April 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a procedural order of 15 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_16/2024, ACT_2379/2024, CC_17292/2024, ORD_18121/2024), the Düsseldorf Local Division (Thomas, presiding, Thom, Schober) decided to hear together the infringement action on EP 3 466 498 B1 brought by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH and the counterclaim for revocation. The Art. 33(3) UPCA option was settled early, before the close of the written procedure, so that a technically qualified judge could be assigned promptly.

Question

Should the local division take the option under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA, and may it do so before the written procedure closes (Rule 37 RoP)?

Decision

Yes, having heard the parties, who raised no objection. The panel had already considered infringement and validity in the earlier provisional measures proceedings (UPC_CFI_452/2023). A single panel ensures a consistent construction of the patent on both issues. The technical complexity is moderate and the number of validity attacks manageable. An early decision was justified because the division is still young and some of its members sit part-time or case by case, so assigning the technical judge early avoids scheduling problems. The judge-rapporteur was instructed to ask the President of the Court of First Instance to make that assignment.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a local division may settle joint handling of infringement and revocation at the start of the written procedure, particularly where it has already dealt with the case in interim proceedings.

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.