Pirelli Tyre v SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER (CFI, 5 November 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 5 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_649/2024, application 59315/2024, ORD_59754/2024), the single judge of the Milan Local Division (P. Perrotti) authorised Pirelli Tyre, without first hearing Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber (« Helios ») and the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub-Council (« CCPIT »), to have the HA-51R and HA-51F tyres with the features of claim 1 of EP 3 519 207, and the related promotional material, seized at their shared stand at the EICMA fair in Rho Fiera. An ex parte injunction, ruled out in a preliminary order, was no longer sought.

The order is of interest to patentees facing foreign exhibitors: seizure limited to the targeted products, execution by a bailiff at the stand, no security required.

Facts and procedure

Pirelli Tyre, proprietor of EP 3 519 207 for an enduro motorcycle tyre, in force in Italy, Germany and France, markets the Scorpion Rally STR. It learned from an announcement of 8 October 2024 on Helios’s website that the HA-51R and HA-51F tyres, which it considers infringing, would be shown at EICMA from 5 to 10 November 2024, on the stand shared by Helios and the CCPIT. No protective letter had been filed (Rule 207.8). By preliminary order of 31 October 2024 (ORD_59449/2024), the judge indicated that no ex parte injunction would be granted and invited the applicant to confirm its requests for seizure, delivery up and costs or to withdraw. It confirmed them on 3 November 2024.

The applicable law

UPC jurisdiction rests on Arts 32(1)(c) and 62 UPCA, absent any opt-out (Art. 83(3)), the Milan Local Division is competent as the place of infringement (Art. 33(1)(a)). Art. 62(3) and Rules 211.1(b) and 211.2 require only a mere suspicion of infringement for a seizure. Arts 60(5) and 62(5) and Rule 212.1 allow action without hearing the defendant, in particular where delay is likely to cause irreparable harm. Rule 211.5 allows security to be dispensed with in special circumstances.

Question

Can an ex parte seizure of tyres displayed at a trade fair be ordered against two entities based in China, one of which merely shares the stand?

Decision

Validity is presumed, with no opposition or revocation action reported (section 3). The suspicion of infringement rests on the expert’s comparison table, the patent figures, the announcement and the stand allocation. Imminent infringement is well founded, the tyres being intended for the Italian, French and German markets (section 4). The measure extends to the CCPIT, which shares the stand, its role not yet being clear (section 5).

Urgency is established: the applicant acted promptly and the fair lasts only six days (section 6). Summoning the defendants, both based in China, would defeat the purpose of the measure, while their rights of review and appeal remain intact. Seizing two models is proportionate, as the defendants keep and may display the rest of their range (section 7). No security is required: it would make the order impossible to implement during the fair, and the applicant, a major global manufacturer, can compensate any harm (section 11).

The order provides for delivery of the tyres and promotional material to the bailiff, custody by a custodian chosen by the applicant, service at the stand on execution, execution with minimal disruption to the fair, police assistance, attendance of the applicant’s representatives and advisers, and immediate enforceability. Proceedings on the merits must be started within 20 working days or 31 calendar days of service, whichever is longer. Costs are reserved. Review within 30 days of execution, appeal within 15 days of service.

Key points for practice

• Ex parte seizure at a trade fair is available where the defendants are based outside the EU and the fair is short.
• The measure may cover a co-exhibitor whose role is not yet established, provided it shares the stand.
• The applicant’s evident solvency and the brevity of the fair justify dispensing with security.
• Practical point: documenting the technical comparison and the stand allocation as soon as the display is announced makes it possible to obtain the seizure before the fair opens.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1)(c), 33(1)(a), 60(5), 62(3) and (5), 73(2)(a) and 83(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 5, 13.1, 197.3, 197.4, 206, 207.8, 208.2, 211, 212.1, 212.3, 213.1, 220.1(c) and 224.2(b)

Case law cited

No UPC decision is cited.

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.