SES-imagotag v Hanshow Technology (CFI, 20 December 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 20 December 2023 (UPC_CFI_292/2023, ACT_567009/2023), the Munich Local Division (M. Zigann, presiding, T. Pichlmaier, judge-rapporteur, M. Kokke, and U. Schwengelbeck, technically qualified judge) dismissed SES-imagotag SA’s application for provisional measures against four Hanshow group companies based on EP 3 883 277, which concerns electronic shelf labels.

The division accepted jurisdiction but was not satisfied with sufficient certainty that the patent was infringed, so it did not examine validity. The order is of interest for its construction of the claim in the light of the description and the original claim wording, and for ordering the unsuccessful applicant to pay the costs of the protective letter.

Facts and procedure

The applicant, the patent proprietor, complained of the marketing of labels from the Nebular and Stellar ranges by the respondents (Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, the parent company based in China, and its German, French and Dutch sales subsidiaries). It sought an injunction covering seventeen Contracting Member States, backed by a penalty payment. The respondents had filed a protective letter on 10 August 2023 (App_560285/2023), the application was lodged on 4 September 2023 and heard on 28 November 2023.

The order records that an opt-out made on 28 April 2023 for the underlying application was withdrawn on 29 August 2023, unitary effect being registered on 1 September 2023. A revocation action is pending (UPC_CFI_360/2023). The respondents challenged jurisdiction, infringement, validity, urgency and the balance of interests.

The applicable law

The local division’s jurisdiction rests on Art. 33(1) UPCA read with Art. 32(1)(c): the applicant alleged acts in Germany, including use of the products in a Munich supermarket and a test purchase on 20 August 2023. At the jurisdiction stage a coherent submission is sufficient, whether there is actual infringement is a matter for the merits. The acts are attributed to all four respondents on the basis of framework sales agreements with European retailers.

Costs are governed by Art. 69(1) UPCA. A protective letter forwarded under Rule 207.8 RoP forms part of the proceedings.

Question

Do the Hanshow labels realise the features requiring the printed circuit board and chip to be housed on the side of the rear face of the casing, while the antenna lies on the side of the front face?

Decision

The division reads features 7 and 8.4 together, since chip and antenna interact technically, relying on the description and on the words « à distance de » in the original French claim, which show that the spacing is meant to limit interference. Each component is assigned to one face: the antenna must lie wholly on the side of the front face, the chip wholly on the side of the rear face. Whether the antenna may sit behind the screen is left open.

For the Nebular-350 Y-N, examined in detail, a substantial part of the antenna lies on the inner rear surface of the casing. The front face is the window in front of the screen, not the back of the screen. The same applies to the other products, so far as they were presented. The application is dismissed without any examination of validity. The applicant bears the costs, including those of the protective letter, which are as a rule to be reimbursed by an unsuccessful applicant, capped at EUR 200,000, the value in dispute is set at EUR 2,000,000, the figure given by the applicant and not contested.

Key points for practice

• At the jurisdiction stage, the division is satisfied with a coherent submission of acts committed in a Contracting Member State.
• The original wording of the claim may shed light on amended features, alongside the description.
• A protective letter forwarded to the judge becomes part of the proceedings: its costs are in principle reimbursed by an unsuccessful applicant.
• Practical point: an application for provisional measures must establish infringement by each targeted model with sufficient certainty, failing that, the division rules neither on validity nor on urgency.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 32(1)(c), Art. 33(1), Art. 69(1) and Art. 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 207.8, 220.1(c) and 224.1(b)

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.