Pirelli Tyre v TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP (CFI, 5 November 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 5 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_650/2024, application 59322/2024, ORD_59764/2024), the single judge of the Milan Local Division (A. Zana) authorised Pirelli Tyre, without first hearing Tianjin Kingtyre Group and Kingtyre Deutschland, to have two motorcycle tyre models seized at their stand at the EICMA fair in Rho Fiera, together with any tyres with the same features and the related promotional material, under claims 1 and 3 of EP 2 519 412. An injunction, refused in a preliminary order, was no longer sought.

The order shows the Milan Local Division’s use of ex parte seizure during a trade fair against companies based outside Italy, executed by a bailiff and without security from the applicant.

Facts and procedure

Pirelli Tyre, proprietor of EP 2 519 412, in force in Italy, Germany and France and covering motorcycle tyres and pairs of front and rear tyres, learned on 9 October 2024, from an announcement on Kingtyre’s website, that two models (« Radial tire high speed K902 » and « Motorcycle radial tyre-slick racing Grade W ») would be shown at the EICMA fair in Milan from 5 November 2024, on a stand allocated to Kingtyre Deutschland. By a preliminary order of 31 October 2024 (ORD_59450/2024), the judge declined an ex parte injunction. The applicant then limited its request to seizure, delivery up and costs. It intends to bring the main action before the same division.

The applicable law

UPC jurisdiction rests on Arts 32(1)(c) and 62 UPCA, no opt-out having been filed (Art. 83(3)), the Milan Local Division is competent as the place of the threatened infringement (Art. 33(1)(a)). Rule 211 allows seizure of products suspected of infringement on the basis of mere suspicion (Rules 211.1(b) and 211.2), having regard to urgency (Rule 211.4) and the balance of interests (Rule 211.3). Rule 212.1 and Arts 60(5) and 62(5) UPCA allow measures without hearing the defendant where delay is likely to cause irreparable harm.

Question

Are the conditions met for an ex parte seizure of products displayed at a trade fair by companies based in China and Germany?

Decision

On validity, the judge relied on the presumption of validity of the patent, granted by the EPO and in several non-European countries, with no opposition or revocation action reported, while recalling the applicant’s duty of candour (section 4.1). On infringement, the comparison based on claim construction and photographs gave rise to a sufficient suspicion of infringement of claims 1 and 3, the applicant alleging literal infringement (section 4.2). The measure extends to Kingtyre Deutschland as holder of the stand (section 5).

Urgency was established, as the applicant acted promptly after the announcement of 9 October (section 6). Proceeding ex parte was justified by the defendants’ foreign seats, which made an inter partes hearing before the fair practically impossible, and by the imminence of the display (section 7). The balance of interests favoured the applicant: the seizure only partly affects the defendants’ presence at the fair, while the applicant faces loss of market share (section 8). No security was required, given special circumstances arising from the very short time frame and the applicant’s solvency (section 9, Rule 211.5).

The order authorises seizure by a bailiff, with the applicant’s representatives and technical advisers present, custody of the goods by a custodian chosen by the applicant, service at the stand on execution, police assistance and immediate enforceability. Proceedings on the merits must be started within 31 calendar days or 20 working days of service, whichever is longer, failing which the measure may be revoked at the defendants’ request. The defendants may request a review within 30 days of execution. Costs are reserved for the main proceedings.

Key points for practice

• Seizure of products displayed at a trade fair can be obtained ex parte where the defendants are based abroad and the display is imminent.
• Mere suspicion of infringement, supported by a claim analysis and photographs, is enough at the seizure stage.
• Security may be waived where time is very short and the applicant’s solvency is established.
• Practical point: where an ex parte injunction is refused, narrowing the request to seizure and delivery up can still secure a measure enforceable during the fair.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1)(c), 33(1)(a), 41, 42, 60(5), (6) and (8), 62(3) and (5), 73(2) and 83(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 5, 197.3, 197.4, 206, 208.2, 211, 212, 213.1, 220.1(c) and 224.2(b)

Case law cited

Milan Local Division, 13 June 2023, cited in the order as « CFI 177/2023 », on the applicant’s solvency.

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.