- with readers working within the Pharmaceuticals & BioTech industries
In an order dated 19 December 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction in a dispute concerning printer cartridges. The court's assessment of urgency and necessity will be encouraging for patentees, and especially those in the consumer products industry.
Preliminary injunctions
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a patentee must demonstrate their entitlement to bring the action, that the patent is valid or likely to be valid, and that there is actual or imminent infringement (Article 62(4) UPCA and Rule 211(2) RoP).
The UPC will also weigh the interests of both the patentee and the defendant, particularly considering the potential harm to each party resulting from the grant or refusal of the injunction (Article 62(2) UPCA and Rule 211(3) RoP). As part of this step, the court will assess the necessity and urgency of the preliminary injunction for the patentee
The UPC has developed a substantial body of case law on each of these issues.
The dispute
An application for a preliminary injunction was brought by Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HP), the well-known manufacturer of printers and related products. The application was brought against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzen Moan Technology Co. Ltd. (Shenzen). Shenzen, a company based in China, offer and sell printer cartridges that are advertised as being compatible with HP printers. A settlement was reached between Andreas Rentmeister and HP before trial.
Entitlement, infringement and validity
As HP was the registered proprietor of the patent in suit, there was no question regarding its entitlement to bring the action.
Following an analysis of the claims and Shenzen's cartridges, the court held that it was more likely than not that the patent was literally infringed.
Validity was addressed briefly. As is well established (see, e.g. UPC_CoA_335/2023, 26 February 2024, NanoString v 10x Genomics), the burden of proof regarding validity lies with the defendant. In the absence of any arguments from the defendant and also of any pending invalidity proceedings, the court found no reason to doubt the patent's validity.
Urgency
The Court of Appeal has established that the urgency aspect is satisfied when there is no unreasonable delay by the patentee in bringing the action from the point in time at which they had, or should have had, the facts and evidence necessary for bringing the action (UPC_CoA_182/2024, 25 September 2024, Ortovox v Mammut; UPC_CoA_446/2025, 13 August 2025, Boeringer Ingelheim v Zentiva). As noted by the court in the present case (HP v Shenzen), patentees must be able to provide facts and evidence within short timeframes in provisional measures proceedings, making adequate preparation essential.
HP became aware of Shenzen's activities on 10 April 2025. Immediately thereafter, HP initiated evidence collection and analysis of Shenzen's cartridges. The application for the injunction was filed on 13 June 2025, less than one week after the analysis was completed. The court did not consider this period indicative of hesitation, and therefore found the urgency aspect satisfied. As has been shown in previous cases, some delay between becoming aware of the infringement and filing the application for provisional measures is permissible, provided it is required for the patentee to be properly prepared for the preliminary application.
Necessity
Provisional measures are considered necessary if a delay in granting relief until a decision on the merits would cause irreparable harm to the patentee – though irreparable harm is not a prerequisite (UPC_CoA_540/2024, 24 February 2025, Mammut v Ortovox; UPC_CoA_768/2024, 30 April 2025, Bioletic v Light Guide). Irreparable harm has been found where the defendant's product directly competes with the patentee's product, leading to lasting price erosion.
In the present case, Shenzen's cartridges competed directly with HP's and were offered at significantly lower prices. The availability of cheaper cartridges was considered by the court likely to shift consumer purchasing preferences: once accustomed to lower prices, consumers may continue to seek cheaper "clone" cartridges even if Shenzen's cartridges were to become unavailable. HP submitted supporting figures and forecasts. The court therefore held that that Shenzen's actions could lead to a permanent loss of HP's market share, and damages would not be an adequate remedy.
The court also noted that Shenzen's actions posed a risk of significant reputational harm to HP. This was on the basis that consumers might assume Shenzen's cartridges were associated with or authorised by HP, and poor performance (e.g., lower print quality) resulting from use of Shenzen's cartridges may then be attributed to HP. This could result in customers to moving away from HP products.
Consequently, the court considered it unreasonable to expect HP to await a decision on the merits, and granted the preliminary injunction.
Concluding thoughts
This order does not alter the UPC's established framework for assessing applications for provisional measures. However, the order will be encouraging for patentees in the field of consumer products because of the way in which urgency and necessity were assessed to result in the grant of the preliminary injunction against a company selling replica products. In particular, the reference to reputational damage as a factor relevant to the necessity of provisional measures is notable.
And this is not the first success that HP has enjoyed in preliminary injunction proceedings in relation to ink cartridges at the UPC. In UPC_CFI_449/2025, 28 November 2025, HP v Zhuai & Rentmeister, HP was granted a preliminary injunction against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. on the basis of two different patents. Some of the reasoning regarding urgency and necessity in UPC_CFI_449/2025 is very similar to that discussed above. Andreas Rentmeister is a defendant common to UPC_CFI_449/2025 and the Shenzen case (UPC_CFI_515/2025), but as mentioned above a settlement has been reached between these two parties.
Further, the two orders (UPC_CFI_515/2025 and UPC_CFI_449/2025) serve as a reminder of the geographical reach of the UPC. In the Shenzen case (UPC_CFI_515/2025), HP secured a preliminary injunction covering seven major European markets (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden) in a single set of proceedings. For patentees, particularly in fast‑moving consumer product markets, this ability to obtain swift, multi‑country relief reinforces the UPC's attractiveness as a forum for enforcement.
J A Kemp LLP acts for clients in the USA, Europe and globally, advising on UK and European patent practice and representing them before the European Patent Office, UKIPO and Unified Patent Court. We have in-depth expertise in a wide range of technologies, including Biotech and Life Sciences, Pharmaceuticals, Software and IT, Chemistry, Electronics and Engineering and many others. See our website to find out more.
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.
