Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (CFI, UPC_CFI_807/2024, 27 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 27 May 2026, given in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_807/2024 (infringement) and UPC_CFI_334/2025 (counterclaim for revocation), the Düsseldorf Local Division dismisses both Wonderland Nurserygoods’ action against Cybex GmbH, Cybex Retail GmbH and Columbus Trading-Partners and the counterclaim against EP 1 905 615 (swivel locking device for a stroller wheel). The patent is held valid but infringed neither literally nor by equivalence. The decision applies the Hague Local Division’s four-question equivalence test in detail to a design that moves the locking components from one sub-assembly to another.

Facts and procedure

The patent, filed on 26 September 2007 claiming Chinese priority of 28 September 2006, is asserted in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. Wonderland alleges literal infringement of most features and, as its main request, equivalence for features 1.4 and 1.6. The defendants dispute features 1.9 and 1.10 and counterclaim for revocation. The proprietor files auxiliary requests to amend. The proprietor’s application to extend its equivalence argument was refused by the judge-rapporteur on 29 August 2025, a refusal upheld by the panel on 14 October 2025. The oral hearing took place on 23 April 2026.

The applicable law

Both actions are admissible and the UPC has international jurisdiction (paragraphs 68 to 72), under Art. 32(1) UPCA and Regulation 1215/2012. The claim is construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. Validity is assessed under Arts 54, 56, 87, 89 and 123(2) EPC. New combinations of prior art amount to a change of claim governed by Rule 263 RoP.

Question

Must a « cavity » with a clasping mechanism contain a distinct component located inside it, and can moving the locking components from the wheel bearing assembly to the seat amount to infringement by equivalence?

Decision

The seat and the wheel bearing assembly are structurally and functionally separate (paragraph 90), the cavity is an empty space whose walls cannot be the clasping mechanism, which must be an identifiable component located inside it (paragraphs 105 to 112). The counterclaim fails: no added matter (paragraphs 114 to 124), novelty established (paragraphs 129 to 156), inventive step acknowledged, priority being valid (paragraphs 169 to 218), a new combination is disregarded under Rule 263 RoP (paragraph 185). There is no literal infringement, as no identifiable component sits in the cavity (paragraphs 223 to 231). The first three questions of the equivalence test are answered in the negative: the function of each feature is assessed separately (paragraphs 251 and 252), the modification requires several non-obvious rearrangements contrary to the patent’s teaching (paragraphs 259 to 264), and the skilled person would not read the patent as covering such modifications (paragraph 270). Each side bears the costs of the action it loses. The value of each action is set at EUR 1.5 million and the costs ceiling at EUR 400,000 (paragraphs 272 to 277).

Key points for practice

• A spatial feature (« within the cavity ») requires a distinct component. The walls of the space are not enough.
• Equivalence is assessed feature by feature: reducing the invention to a « secured connection » does not establish identity of function.
• Prior art combinations not developed at the hearing or raised late are disregarded.
• Practical point: a proprietor relying on equivalence must explain why the claimed arrangement matters and address the patent’s contribution to the art.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 32(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 36, 263, 352 and 354

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 56, Art. 69, Art. 87, Art. 89, Art. 123(2), Art. 138

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 24(4), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

Plant-e v Arkyne, The Hague Local Division, 22 November 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Grundfos v Hefei Xinhu, Düsseldorf Local Division, 8 May 2025, Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac, Düsseldorf Local Division, 15 October 2025

Related decisions

• Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex, 14 October 2025, panel review upholding the refusal to extend the equivalence argument.

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.