Hewlett-Packard Development Company v Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. — Düsseldorf Local Division, 19 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_515/2025), Order (provisional measures, R. 206 RoP; follow-up to order of 17 October 2025).
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a follow-up order in PI proceedings concerning EP 3 835 965 B1 (“Logic circuitry”). While the earlier order of 17 October 2025 granted provisional measures against Defendant 1, the order of 19 December 2025 focuses on Defendant 2, a China-based company offering printer cartridges via Amazon. The Court dealt with the practical service impasse by relying on “good service” under Rule 275.2 RoP, proceeded by way of a regular PI order despite Defendant 2’s non-participation, found urgency satisfied based on a tight evidence-gathering and testing timeline, and declined to order enforcement security.
The application for provisional measures was filed on 13 June 2025. Service on Defendant 2 through Chinese authorities did not progress beyond internal forwarding to the Supreme People’s Court. After voluntary acceptance of service was unsuccessfully sought, the Court, on 11 November 2025, ordered that the steps already taken to bring the application to Defendant 2’s attention constitute good service under Rule 275.2 RoP and deemed service effective as of that date. Defendant 2 did not lodge an objection before the issuance of the 19 December 2025 order.
A key feature of the order is the Court’s pragmatic response to stalled service in China. The Court recorded that service via the Chinese Central Authority had been initiated but that no further processing could be detected. It also noted that subsequent inquiries submitted through the portal remained unanswered.
Against that background, the Court relied on its earlier order deeming service effective under Rule 275.2 RoP, and proceeded on that basis.
The Court again rejected the idea of treating a non-participating defendant as a default scenario in the sense of Rule 355 RoP. Instead, it held that where a defendant does not lodge an objection within the time period set by the Court (or declines to substantiate it for reasons outside the proceedings), the application may be decided on the basis of the applicant’s submissions by means of a regular PI order.
In practice, this approach avoids importing the default-judgment logic into the PI regime under Rules 205 et seq. RoP. The Court emphasised that it is for the defendant to decide whether to lodge an objection meeting Rule 209.1(a) RoP; if the defendant declines, there is no reason to grant the procedural advantages associated with default decisions (including the setting-aside mechanism under Rule 356 RoP).
The Court assessed urgency under Rule 211.4 RoP by focusing on when the applicant had (or should have had) the facts and evidence required to file an application with reasonable prospects of success.
On the facts relating to Defendant 2, the Court accepted a highly structured and comparatively fast sequence: discovery of the Amazon listings on 10 April 2025; immediate involvement of counsel and ordering of samples the same day; receipt of cartridges shortly thereafter; submission of the samples for laboratory testing; and compilation of the infringement analysis and evidentiary record by 8 June 2025. The application followed on 13 June 2025, i.e. less than one week later. The Court therefore found no unreasonable delay and no indication that the applicant acted hesitantly.
The Court declined to require security under Rule 211.5 RoP. It reiterated that security is mandatory in ex parte situations unless special circumstances preclude it (Rule 213.2 RoP), whereas in inter partes cases the Court has discretion.
Here, the Court found no reason to impose security. It relied on the fact that Defendant 2 had not raised arguments against the application and, in the Court’s view, did not intend to challenge the provisional measures. In the absence of apparent grounds warranting security, the Court considered it unnecessary to burden the applicant with providing security.
