ParTec v Lenovo Global Technology Germany (CFI, 30 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 30 June 2026, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismisses, without hearing the defendants, ParTec AG’s application for provisional measures against three Lenovo companies based on EP 3 743 812. The panel rules only on necessity and finds it not established, because the applicant gave no detailed and substantiated account of the market situation, while infringement proceedings on the merits between the same parties are already pending. The order is a reminder that direct competition and the alleged economic weight of the acts are not enough to justify provisional measures.

Facts and procedure

ParTec AG relies on European patent with unitary effect EP 3 743 812, on dynamic allocation of heterogeneous compute resources, against Lenovo Global Technology Germany GmbH, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH and Lenovo Group Limited. It brought an infringement action (UPC_CFI_1815/2026) and then the present application for provisional measures (UPC_CFI_2258/2026), based solely on alleged indirect infringement of method claim 1 by a new embodiment integrating an NVIDIA software stack, the embodiment originally attacked having, on its case, been withdrawn from the market (paragraphs 9, 10 and 12). In separate proceedings, the Munich Local Division dismissed on 11 March 2026 an infringement action brought by, among others, ParTec against NVIDIA (paragraph 8). ParTec sought primarily an order without hearing the defendants and an injunction backed by penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per act (paragraphs 13 and 14).

The applicable law

Art. 62 UPCA and Rule 211.1 RoP allow provisional measures to prevent imminent infringement or to stop infringement. As the procedure is summary (Rule 205 RoP), measures are necessary only if the outcome of the merits proceedings cannot be awaited. The court weighs the parties’ interests and the time factor, and the applicant must explain why the measures are necessary (Rules 206.2(c) and 211.3 RoP, paragraphs 27 to 30). Irreparable harm is not a necessary condition (paragraph 31). This reading is aligned with Art. 9 of Directive 2004/48 and its recital 22, and with the CJEU judgment in Phoenix Contact (C-44/21) (paragraphs 32 and 33). An order without hearing the defendant requires, under Rule 212.1 RoP, that delay is likely to cause irreparable harm or that evidence is at risk (paragraph 16).

Question

Can provisional measures be ordered, if need be without hearing the defendants, where merits proceedings between the same parties are pending and the applicant relies on direct competition and economically significant infringing acts?

Decision

The application is dismissed in its entirety for lack of necessity, which a fortiori rules out an order without hearing the defendants (paragraph 15). No risk to evidence is alleged, no irreparable harm from delay is shown, and neither the undisclosed product switch nor indications drawn from public materials justify an ex parte order (paragraphs 16 to 22). The threshold is higher where merits proceedings are already pending (paragraphs 24 and 37). Direct competition is relevant but not sufficient (paragraph 39): an applicant alleging loss of market share must give a detailed and substantiated account of the market before the product’s entry, which ParTec failed to do, offering no market share figures, no lasting effect on customers and no significant price undercutting (paragraphs 42 and 43). The defendants were already selling the first embodiment, which, at least on the claim construction adopted in Munich, is a non-infringing alternative. Measures would therefore alter rather than preserve the status quo (paragraph 44). The balance of interests favours the defendants (paragraph 45). Since a dismissal does not prejudice them, it is ordered without hearing them (paragraph 35). ParTec bears the costs, by analogy with Rule 118.5 RoP, and the value in dispute is set at EUR 1,000,000 (paragraphs 47 and 48). Item III of the operative part reads “grants the appeal”, which the reasons do not explain.

Key points for practice

• Necessity is assessed more strictly where merits proceedings between the same parties are already pending (paragraphs 24 and 37).
• Being a direct competitor is not enough: the market situation before the contested product’s entry must be documented (paragraphs 39, 42 and 43).
• A dismissal may be ordered without hearing the defendant, with the applicant bearing the costs by analogy with Rule 118.5 RoP (paragraphs 35 and 47).
• Practical point: an application targeting a new embodiment should be backed by figures on market share, pricing and customers, since general allegations of harm will not carry it (paragraphs 42 to 45).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25(c), 26, 62, 63 and 82(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 205, 206, 209, 211, 212.1 and 354.3

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 9 and recital 22

Case law cited

Bioletic v Light Guide Optics, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2025, on the necessity of provisional measures, Bioletic v Light Guide Optics, Düsseldorf Local Division, 5 September 2024, on dismissal without a hearing and costs, myStromer v Revolt Zycling, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 June 2023, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, on irreparable harm, Munich Local Division, 11 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_180/2025).

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.