Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, 29 August 2025)

Date	29 August 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Amend Document
Registry reference	App_28536/2025 · ORD_34000/2025
Parties	Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 29 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_807/2024 and UPC_CFI_334/2025, App_28536/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division denied Wonderland Nurserygoods’ application for leave to change its claim in its action for infringement by equivalence of EP 1 905 615 against Cybex and Columbus Trading-Partners, on the ground that no leave was needed. The denial therefore favours the claimant: extending the equivalence argument to further features is not an amendment of the case under Rule 263.

Question

Does extending the equivalence argument to further features of claim 1, and correcting typographical errors in a main request, require leave under Rule 263?

Decision

No. The case is amended where the nature or scope of the dispute changes (paragraphs 11 to 15). Relying on equivalence for features 1.9 and 1.10, in addition to features 1.4 and 1.6, leaves the dispute unchanged: same patent, same strollers with swivel locking devices (paragraph 15). The claimant merely allocates components of the same embodiment differently between the features, rather than targeting a different structure (paragraphs 16 to 19). Uncontested corrections of typographical errors in main request II are not an amendment either (paragraph 21). Whether Rules 13 and 9.2 restrict the new argument was reserved (paragraph 20).

Key points for practice

Practical point: Rule 263 offers no protection against a new argument, the opposing party must rely on Rules 13 and 9.2 to challenge its admissibility.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.2, 13 and 263
European Patent Convention: Art. 69(1) and Protocol on its interpretation
Case law cited: OrthoApnea, Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_456/2024), TGI v AIM, Court of Appeal, 11 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_169/2025)

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantWonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd.5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Amend Document
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande d'autorisation est rejetée parce qu'étendre l'argument d'équivalence à d'autres caractéristiques et corriger des erreurs matérielles ne modifient pas la nature ni l'étendue du litige.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 1 905 615 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

OrthoApnea v *** (CoA, 21 November 2024) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 1 905 615`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, UPC_CFI_807/2024, 27 May 2026) · Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, 14 October 2025) · Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, 5 August 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.