Washtower IP v Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs (CFI, 11 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 11 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_479/2025), the Hague Local Division largely granted the application for provisional measures brought by Washtower IP and Washtower against IBBH, BEGA Consult, BEGA BBK and NEG Novex, based on unitary patent EP 3 522 755 (a cabinet for housing a washing machine). It enjoined the « Laundreezy » and « Respekta Clara » cabinets in all Contracting Member States and ordered limited information and a recall, subject to security of EUR 25,000 and EUR 75,000. The order applies the four-question equivalence test of Plant-e v Arkyne and finds urgency in price erosion, which is relevant to proprietors of recently granted patents facing a former licensee.

Facts and procedure

The BEGA group manufactured the cabinets under a Washtower licence from 2019 to 2024, the licence was terminated on 14 July 2023 and the sell-off period ended on 1 February 2025 (paragraphs 2.2.2 and 2.2.3). The patent was granted on 2 April 2025, after an EPO Board of Appeal reversed the Examining Division’s refusal, and unitary effect was registered on 6 May 2025 (paragraphs 2.3.1 and 5.1.1). Following a cease-and-desist letter of 19 May 2025, the application was filed on 28 May 2025, the defendant Wasombouw was withdrawn after a settlement, and a revocation action was filed on 13 August 2025 before the Milan Central Division. The hearing took place on 14 August 2025 (paragraphs 1, 2.3.1 and 10). The registry published this order under two separate entries.

The applicable law

The measures rest on Art. 62(1) UPCA and Rule 206, with validity assessed under Art. 123(2) EPC and the scope of protection under Art. 1 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC (paragraph 8.1.22). Interim costs fall under Art. 69 UPCA and Rule 211.1(d), enforcement under Rules 118.8, 352 and 354.

Question

Can the proprietor of a patent granted less than two months earlier obtain provisional measures against its former licensee where one feature of claim 1 is infringed only by equivalence?

Decision

The panel held the patent more likely than not valid. The retaining member is disclosed independently of the cover plate, so the added matter objection failed (paragraphs 5.1.2 to 5.1.6), novelty was not disputed and no combination of D1 to D8 renders the invention obvious (paragraphs 6 and 7.1.1 to 7.1.19). A single plate-like support means suffices, provided it transmits a meaningful part of the vertical forces, including under vibration. The defendants’ static tests did not displace that finding (paragraphs 8.1.12 to 8.1.20). Feature 1.9 is reproduced by equivalence under the four Plant-e v Arkyne questions (paragraphs 8.1.22 to 8.1.31), and claim 1 is more likely than not infringed (paragraph 8.1.32). Urgency follows from the risk of price undercutting and lost market share, the application having been filed less than two months after publication of the grant (paragraphs 9.1.2 and 10). The balance of interests favours the applicants, the impact on the defendants being « relatively small » (paragraph 11). Instead of the EUR 500,000 sought, security was set at EUR 25,000 for the injunction and EUR 75,000 for the recall, having regard in particular to the applicants’ SME status (paragraph 12). Information on prices and quantities, relevant to damages, was refused for lack of urgency (paragraph 12.1.2). The defendants were ordered jointly and severally to pay interim costs of EUR 62,600, including EUR 56,000 of legal fees agreed between the parties, and penalty payments are capped at one million euros.

Key points for practice

• The Plant-e v Arkyne equivalence test applies in provisional proceedings. The fourth question (novelty and inventiveness of the accused product) is answered by reference to the validity assessment.
• Purely static tests do not defeat a functional feature that must be assessed under operating conditions.
• Security is set separately for the injunction and the recall, and may be well below the amount sought where the applicant is an SME.
• Practical point: an application filed less than two months after publication of the grant meets temporal urgency, but information for calculating damages is in principle left to the main action.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 62(1), 69, 73(2)(a) and 82

Statute of the Court

Art. 37(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.8, 158.2, 206, 211.1(d), 220.1(c), 224.1(b), 352, 354 and 355.4

European Patent Convention

Art. 123(2), Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69, Art. 1

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, NanoString v 10x Genomics (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Plant-e v Arkyne, The Hague Local Division, 22 November 2024, N.J Diffusion v Gisela Mayer, Paris Local Division, 1 August 2025, DISH v Aylo, Mannheim Local Division, 6 June 2025, X v OrthoApnea, Brussels Local Division, 17 January 2025, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2024)

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.