- within Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
No Default Decision Despite Non-Response
Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court has discretion to inform the defendant of an application for provisional measures and to invite an objection within a specified time limit. If the defendant fails to lodge or substantiate such an objection, as occurred in this case, the Court may decide the application on the basis of the applicant's submissions by issuing a regular order in the preliminary injunction proceedings.
The court found that a decision by default under R. 355.1(a) RoP is not appropriate in this situation. First, the Rules on provisional measures (R. 205 et seq. RoP) do not provide for a default decision in this procedural constellation. Second, a regular order better reflects the balance of interests: the defendant has been given the opportunity to object and has chosen not to do so, and there is therefore no justification for granting the procedural advantages linked to a default decision, in particular the possibility of setting it aside under R. 356 RoP, which would undermine the applicant's interest in the effective enforcement of its patent in PI proceedings.
The fact that the applicant additionally requested a decision by default does not preclude the issuance of a regular order. Pursuant to Art. 76(1) UPCA, the Court must decide within the scope of the parties' requests and may not award more than is sought. The applicant's principal request concerned a preliminary injunction and further provisional measures; the request for a default decision merely supplemented, but did not replace, that application. Accordingly, where the substantive requirements are met, the Court may grant provisional measures by way of a regular order rather than a decision by default, even if a default decision has also been requested.
2. Division
LD Duesseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_515_2025
4. Type of proceedings
Application for provisional measures
5. Parties
Applicant:
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P
Defendants:
Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 835 965 B1
7. Jurisdictions
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 205, 206, 209.1(a), 355.1(a), 356 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.
[View Source]
