UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, 10 July 2025: Absence of a party in summary proceedings from the oral hearing does not necessitate a default judgement

Preliminary injunction, seizure and order to communicate information granted (Article 62 UPCA, Article 67 UPCA)). Absence of a party in summary proceedings from the oral hearing does not necessitate a default judgement (R. 210(3) RoP, R. 116 RoP, R. 355 RoP). Pursuant to R. 210(3) RoP, Rules 111 to 116 of the Rules of Procedure apply mutatis mutandis to summary proceedings. On this basis, the court is not obliged to postpone a procedural step, including a decision on the merits, solely because a party was not present at the oral hearing (R. 116(2) RoP). According to R. 116(3) RoP, a party not represented at the oral hearing shall be treated as if it were relying solely on its written submissions. Accordingly, the Local Chamber based its order on the respondent's submissions in the statement of opposition. Undisputed facts (R. 171.2 RoP). Only if the respondent disputes the allegation made by the applicant is it considered to be substantially disputed. If, as in this case, it does not do so and merely makes general statements about the applicant's burden of proof, the corresponding submission of the opposing party is deemed to be undisputed. Urgent interest regarding information on the origin and distribution channels to prevent future infringements, not with regard to production costs, profits and advertising, which is primarily relevant for the calculation of damages (Article 67 UPCA, R. 209.2(b) RoP)

IPPT20250710, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International