LD Hamburg, August 25, 2025, Order On Application For Provisional Measures, UPC_CFI_1535/2026

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.

Explore Firm Details

The Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addresses whether patent holders must assert all potentially infringed patents in a single preliminary measures application, or if they may pursue separate proceedings. The decision clarifies the scope of due diligence obligations when patent holders become aware of potential infringements and the strategic implications for enforcement actions.

Germany Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Nicolas Thöne’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Intellectual Property topic(s)
in United Kingdom
with readers working within the Technology and Construction & Engineering industries

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Technology, Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment, Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

For the assessment of urgency it is relevant when the applicant was able to physically obtain and examine the potentially infringing product

Information obtained earlier is only relevant if such information (e.g. drawings) allow applicant to determine with sufficient certainty whether the potentially infringing product is infringing the patent in suit.

The applicant of preliminary measures is not obliged to assert all potentially infringed patents in one application. However, if the patent holder becomes aware of potential infringing actions, the patent holder is expected to investigate with due diligence and take action against all potential infringements

The Court must take into account any undue delay on the part of the applicant in filing a motion for preliminary measures. However, the applicant is not obliged to assert all patents in one application if the applicant does not have the necessary information for all of the allegedly infringed patents.

There is no undue delay on the part of the applicant if the applicant is unable to determine with certainty the infringement of the asserted patent. A tight control of the distribution structure of the respondent might incur difficulties in obtaining an allegedly infringing embodiment.

Disclosure of drawings of the attacked embodiment may be insufficient to assess infringement if the drawings fail to provide the necessary insight. In such cases, obtaining a physical product is essential to determine with sufficient certainty whether the asserted patent is infringed.

2. Division

LD Hamburg

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_1535/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Request for preliminary measures

5. Parties

Applicant: Cilag GmbH International

Respondent: RiVOLUTION GmbH, Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 615 984

7. Jurisdictions

Germany, France, Italy

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 32(1)(c), 62(1), 67 UPCA, R. 206.1, 211.1 RoP

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]