No. 143 - 11 August, 2026
Cybex v Nuna – Local Division Hamburg, 10 August 2026, UPC_CFI_1321/2026
The Hamburg Local Division has granted preliminary measures in a dispute concerning a child-seat system and, in doing so, provided an interesting refinement of the necessity requirement developed by the Court of Appeal in Biolitec v Light Guide (UPC_CoA_540/2024, Order of 24 February 2024).
Under that case law, the Court must consider not only the potential harm to the parties, but also whether the applicant can reasonably be expected to await proceedings on the merits. In Cybex v Nuna, the Local Division found that this was not the case even though the challenged system had already been on the market for more than a year. An important factor was the long-lasting nature of the products: once a family had opted for the challenged child-seat system, that customer could effectively be lost to the applicant for several years.
The order also contains useful procedural guidance on auxiliary requests in PI proceedings.
Cybex sought preliminary measures against Nuna based on EP 4 242 056 B1, concerning a child-seat system comprising a base and different seat elements. The patent was granted on 18 March 2026 and Cybex filed its PI application approximately one month later, on 20 April 2026.
As its main request, Cybex relied on a restricted claim version essentially combining granted claims 1 and 2. The Local Division considered the restricted version sufficiently likely to be valid and found the requirements for preliminary relief fulfilled.
The Court expressly referred to Biolitec v Light Guide (UPC_CoA_540/2024, Order of 24 February 2024, para. 19). According to that order, the assessment of preliminary measures requires consideration of both the potential harm to the parties and the time factor. In particular, the Court must determine whether proceedings on the merits can reasonably be awaited (“necessity requirement”).
The Hamburg Local Division found that Cybex could not reasonably be expected to do so.
This is noteworthy because the so-called “base curv” system had already been available since early 2025. The competitive situation had therefore existed for more than a year, and other competitors were also active on the market. Nevertheless, the Court considered the long-lasting nature of the products to be an important factor supporting preliminary relief.
The child-seat systems were capable of covering a family's needs during approximately the first four years of a child's life. Once a family had selected Nuna's system, that customer was no longer realistically accessible to Cybex for the needs of that child and potentially also for a subsequent sibling.
This provides an interesting refinement of the necessity analysis.
The Court ultimately concluded that the preliminary measures were both temporally and substantively necessary and granted the PI.
The order also contains an interesting procedural clarification.
The Court confirmed the approach already established by the Court of Appeal in Onward v Niche (UPC_CoA_898/2025, Order of 27 March 2026) that preliminary measures may in principle be based on a claim version narrower than the patent as granted.
However, the Local Division refused to admit further auxiliary requests submitted only with the reply. These requests introduced an additional feature which was not, in that form, contained in a dependent claim.
The Court considered that the defendants would have had only a very short period to prepare their defence, in particular regarding validity. In the summary framework of PI proceedings, this would have restricted their ability to defend themselves to an unacceptable extent.
This issue was ultimately not decisive for the outcome because the applicant succeeded on its main request. Nevertheless, it provides useful guidance for future PI proceedings. Where auxiliary requests are already on file, patentees should carefully consider retaining them rather than replacing them after seeing the defendant's validity case. Further requests may be added where necessary, although this in turn risks creating an excessive number of auxiliary requests.
The Hamburg Local Division granted a PI even though the challenged products had already been on the market for more than a year.
A long product lifespan may support the necessity of preliminary measures where an initial purchasing decision removes customers from the accessible market for several years.
Auxiliary requests filed only with the reply may be inadmissible where newly added features leave the defendant insufficient time to address validity.
