UPC CFI, LD The Hague, 21 October 2025 : Permanent injunction by default judgement
06-03-2026 Print this page
Permanent injunction by default judgement in infringement action, following preliminary measures of 31 July 2024 and appeal of 28 November 2025.
Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA)
Earlier preliminary measures upheld by order of a permanent injunction, with the addition that total penalty be maximised ; (Art. 63 UPCA , Article 34 UPCA).
The Court has international jurisdiction to hear the infringement Action (Art. 7.2 Brussels Regulation) because the alleged infringement by the Polish Defendant also takes place in the Netherlands.
Re – establishment of rights denied after failing to submit the Statement of Defense on time by a default decision in order dated April 1 2025. (Rule 320 RoP, Rule 355 RoP).
The applications filed by the Defendant after the Order was issued, are not admitted and the request to reverse the Order with these applications is dismissed. In the Order the termination of the Action with a decision by default was announced.
The fact that some time passes between the issuing of the Order, does not change this.
The default decision only confirms the injunction that is already in place pursuant to the PM Order; it does not change the factual and legal situation, apart from replacing a provisional by a permanent injunction.
Decision by Default (Rule 355 RoP).
The Court understands a decision by default under R.355.2 RoP to mean that in a default situation, it must assess whether the facts are sufficiently substantiated by evidence and whether the requested measures and orders are not prima facie unlawful or unfounded.
The grounds for the injunction and measures that Claimant seeks in the Action, are the same as those it relied on in the PM proceedings ; Patent is therefore valid and infringed.
The SoC largely reflects the facts and legal arguments Claimant submitted in the PM proceedings.
In the PM proceedings the Court (provisionally) considered that the patent is more likely that not to be valid and infringed.
The Court has no reason to assume in these proceedings on the merits, also given that there is no relevant defence to be considered, otherwise.
The following measures requested are deemed disproportionate pursuant to Article 64(4) UPCA,
The request of delivering up so as to remove and prevent entry into or movement within the channels of commerce is considered superfluous in view of the requested destruction .
The request that the destruction of mushrooms is documented by the Defendant and in addition that the Claimant is given the opportunity to watch the destruction, is superfluous.
The order will be drafted to clarify that documentation is only necessary in case Claimant decides not to attend the destruction.
Damages (Article. 68 UPCA, Rule. 118 RoP).
Defendant liable for damages due to the infringement of the patent in the relevant UPC states.
In view of the absence of a defence, the Court establishes that Defendant knowingly infringed or at least had reasonable grounds to know that he would infringe the patent
