1. Key takeaways
The application for a default decision merely supplements, but does not replace, the main application for a PI and other provisional measures
Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court notifies the defendant of an application for provisional measures and invite objections. If the defendant does not respond or declines to substantiate objections, the Court may decide the matter based solely on the applicant's submissions by issuing a regular PI order.
A decision by default under R. 355.1(a) RoP is not applicable in this context, since (i) the Rules on provisional measures (R. 205 et seq. RoP) do not provide for it, and (ii) only a regular PI order reflects the balance of interests: the defendant chooses whether to object, and declining does not entitle them to the procedural benefits of a default decision (such as the possibility of setting it aside).
Even if the applicant additionally requests a default decision, this does not preclude issuing a regular order. Under Art. 76(1) UPCA, the Court must decide within the limits of the parties' requests. Here, the application for a default decision merely supplements, but does not replace, the main application for a PI and other provisional measures. Accordingly, provided the requirements are met, the Court may grant these measures by regular order.
2. Division
LD Düsseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_449/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement proceedings
Application for provisional measures
5. Parties
Claimant: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P
Defendants: Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co.; Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1
7. Jurisdictions
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 209.1(a), 355.1(a), 205 et seq. RoP; Art. 76(1) UPCA
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
