Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, 14 October 2025)
| Date | 14 October 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application Rop 333 |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_807/2024;UPC_CFI_334/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_807/2024 · UPC_CFI_334/2025 |
| Parties | Wonderland Nurserygoods Co.,Ltd. v. Cybex GmbH a. o. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 27 May 2026 : Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, UPC_CFI_807/2024, 27 May 2026) UPC_CFI_807/2024
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
In an order of 14 October 2025, given in proceedings UPC_CFI_807/2024 and UPC_CFI_334/2025, the panel of the Düsseldorf Local Division upheld the judge-rapporteur’s order of 29 August 2025: Wonderland Nurserygoods may extend, in its reply, its equivalence case to features 1.9 and 1.10 of claim 1 of EP 1 905 615 without leave to amend its claim under Rule 263. For practitioners, extending equivalence to other features of the same product therefore requires no leave.
Question
Does extending an equivalence infringement argument to further features, in the reply, amount to an amendment of the claim requiring leave under Rule 263?
Decision
No. The defendants’ application for review was admissible: filed within fifteen days and reasoned, it does not require the applicant to be adversely affected, unlike an appeal under Rule 220.1 (paragraphs 14 to 17). On the merits, the panel applied the Court of Appeal’s case law that an equivalence argument does not necessarily change the nature or scope of the dispute (paragraph 20). The extension rests on the same patent and targets the same products, so it is not an amendment (paragraph 21). All the components concerned belong to the swivel locking device described in the statement of claim, and the fact that some were not named there follows from the very nature of equivalence (paragraphs 23 and 24).
Key points for practice
- A proprietor relying on equivalence may refine in its reply how features map onto the components of the attacked product, provided the product and the patent remain the same.
- Review under Rule 333 is available even to a party that accepts the outcome of the order but challenges its reasoning.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 220.1, 263 and 333
- European Patent Convention
- Art. 69(1) and the Protocol on its Interpretation
- Case law cited
- OrthoApnea v ***, Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024, Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments, Court of Appeal, 14 January 2025
Related decisions
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (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
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.
Parties
- claimantWonderland Nurserygoods Co.,Ltd.5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantCybex GmbH a. oFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 14 October 2025 Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, 14 October 2025) Application Rop 333 · UPC_CFI_807/2024, UPC_CFI_334/2025
- 27 May 2026 Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, UPC_CFI_807/2024, 27 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_807/2024
L’action en contrefaçon et la demande reconventionnelle en nullité sont rejetées : le brevet est valable, mais n’est contrefait ni littéralement ni par équivalent.
- 27 May 2026 Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, UPC_CFI_334/2025, 27 May 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_334/2025
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application Rop 333
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- L'ordonnance du juge rapporteur du 29 août 2025 est confirmée : l'extension de l'argumentation par équivalence aux caractéristiques 1.9 et 1.10 ne constitue pas une modification de la demande soumise à la règle 263.
- 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 615mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, UPC_CFI_807/2024, 27 May 2026) cited in this record
- Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, UPC_CFI_334/2025, 27 May 2026) cited in this record
- TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments Deutschland (CoA, 14 January 2025) cited in this record
- OrthoApnea v *** (CoA, 21 November 2024) cited in this 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, 29 August 2025) · Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, 5 August 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.