Opens in a new tab

Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, 14 October 2025)

Date14 October 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication Rop 333
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_807/2024;UPC_CFI_334/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_807/2024 · UPC_CFI_334/2025
PartiesWonderland Nurserygoods Co.,Ltd. v. Cybex GmbH a. o.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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

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

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
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

  • UPC_CFI_807/2024 official number
  • UPC_CFI_334/2025 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 14 October 2025 Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, 14 October 2025) Application Rop 333 · UPC_CFI_807/2024, UPC_CFI_334/2025
  2. 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.

  3. 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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 1 905 615Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.