- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in United Kingdom
- with readers working within the Pharmaceuticals & BioTech industries
- within Intellectual Property, Cannabis & Hemp and Strategy topic(s)
A recent decision on allegedly infringing printer cartridges offers a sharp, practice-ready illustration of how the UPC approaches preliminary injunctions and evidentiary burdens.
The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Hewlett‑Packard Development Company, L.P. (HP) provisional measures against German reseller Andreas Rentmeister over cartridges accused of infringing HP's European patent on logic circuitry used in replaceable printer cartridges.
HP targeted aftermarket "rebuild" cartridges for certain HP models sold by Rentmeister across multiple UPC territories. A related Chinese supplier named in the application (Shenzhen Moan Technology) has not yet been served and the present order addresses Rentmeister only. After being served with HP's materials, Rentmeister settled and agreed not to defend himself against most of the relief being sought. The Court's findings, however, provide clear guidance for future applicants and respondents alike.
Evidence that moves the needle: direct and literal infringement
The Court found that HP had proven direct and literal infringement under Article 25(a) UPCA. HP's evidence was not merely descriptive—it was technical and specific, including an expert opinion and test results, detailed test logs, and voltage graphs from analyzing the chips on the infringing cartridges. The Court underscored that the cartridges "are designed to understand [the logic] commands... given they are manufactured and marketed to function exclusively with HP printers and replace HP original cartridges...". In other words, the functionality and intended use aligned with the asserted claim scope, and the evidence record met the burden for provisional relief.
Validity challenges: silence speaks volumes
The Court saw no reason to doubt the patent's validity because Rentmeister provided no relevant submissions. In that context, the Court concluded there was a "sufficient degree of certainty regarding the validity of the patent." For parties opposing provisional measures, the takeaway is straightforward: even at the interim stage, a failure to engage on validity can be outcome‑determinative.
Balancing interests: competition, market dynamics, and reputation
When balancing the parties' interests and potential harms, the scales favored HP. The parties are direct competitors, which the Court found likely to lead to loss of turnover, revenue, and market share for HP and potentially permanent market share loss. The Court also flagged the risk that lower‑priced and lower‑quality infringing products could cause reputational harm to HP if customers are unaware they bought non-genuine products and are disappointed by their performance. Importantly, the Court noted that proving irreparable damage is "not a necessary prerequisite for ordering provisional measures" where direct competition exists. In such cases, maintaining the status quo by removing products from the market pending trial may itself suffice.
Urgency done right: a timeline that withstands scrutiny
The Court credited HP for acting promptly. HP discovered the online listings on 10 April 2025, procured samples immediately, received them in mid‑April, completed lab testing in early May, finalized its analysis by 28 May, and filed the application for provisional measures on 13 June. That sequence defeated any suggestion of undue delay. The Court also clarified the legal starting point for any time limits: the date when the applicant became aware, or should have become aware, of the infringement in a way that would enable filing an application for provisional measures with a reasonable prospect of success. Practically, that means the decisive moment is when, after due diligence, the applicant has the necessary facts and evidence contemplated by Rule 206.2(d) RoP.
The order: cross‑border teeth, immediate effect
The result is a cross‑border preliminary injunction, disclosure obligations on Rentmeister, and penalty payments for non‑compliance—immediately enforceable across the seven UPC member states where the patent is in force. Notably, the UPC did not require HP to post security to compensate the defendant, given Rentmeister's confirmation that he did not intend to challenge the application for provisional measures.
Practical takeaways
This ruling highlights how detailed technical evidence, prompt action, and clear market‑harm arguments can carry the day at the interim stage. It also reinforces that, in the UPC, direct competition can lower the threshold on irreparable harm. For patent owners and alleged infringers alike, the message is clear: prepare your evidence early, engage on the merits, and calibrate your litigation posture to the UPC's standards for speed and substance.
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.
