In a decision issued on 27 May 2026, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both an infringement claim and a revocation counterclaim in Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex (UPC_CFI_807/2024; UPC_CFI_334/2025). The case concerned European patent EP 1 905 615, covering a swivel locking device for stroller wheels, with Wonderland suing Cybex group companies over a range of branded pushchairs.
While the dispute arose in the context of strollers, the judgment is notable for its treatment of infringement by equivalence. In particular, the Düsseldorf division expressly addressed the lack of settled guidance from the UPC Court of Appeal on the principles to be used when assessing infringement by equivalence and instead turned to existing first‑instance case law. The Division went on to note that, although earlier UPC decisions had often avoided a full equivalence analysis, the Local Division in The Hague had articulated a structured four-step test, covering technical equivalence, fair scope of protection, legal certainty, and validity considerations (see our earlier article here.)
Of interest is that the German division chose to adopt that Dutch framework in its entirety rather than look to previous German national case law to come up with its own principles. The Düsseldorf Local Division stated that the Dutch criteria “form a coherent whole” and were suitable for assessing equivalence, with there being no reason in the present case to apply a different standard.
This latest decision signals early convergence within the UPC on how equivalence should be assessed, bridging what might historically have been divergent national traditions. Rather than developing an autonomous German-influenced test, the Düsseldorf court has (for now) aligned itself with the structured analysis pioneered in The Hague.
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]