Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex & Ors (UPC_CFI_807/2024, UPC_CFI_334/2025)
Decision date:
14 October 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- This decision concerned an infringement claim brought by Wonderland against Cybex in the Düsseldorf LD in relation to its patent concerning a swivel locking device for a stroller wheel.
- Wonderland alleged that the challenged embodiment made use of features 1.4 and 1.6 of claim 1 by equivalent means, while the other features of the claim were infringed literally. In its statement of defence, Cybex contested the literal infringement of features 1.9 and 1.10.
- In its reply, Wonderland argued that if the court were to find that the challenged embodiment did not infringe those features literally, then infringement by equivalence would also apply. On the same day, Wonderland applied to change its claim to add an auxiliary request claiming infringement by equivalence in relation to features 1.9 and 1.10, in addition to features 1.4 and 1.6. Cybex objected to the application.
- The judge-rapporteur dismissed Wonderland's application, holding that Rule 263 RoP (leave to change or amend case) did not apply to the extension of the equivalence argument as it did not amount to a change in the nature or scope of the dispute. Therefore, Wonderland was able to make the arguments without amending its claim.
- Cybex requested a panel review of the judge-rapporteur's order as they believed the reasoning was disadvantageous to them. Cybex argued that the judge-rapporteur was wrong to state that all of the components of the attacked embodiment invoked under Wonderland's auxiliary request were identified in Wonderland's statement of claim. They maintained that the "cavity" and "clasping mechanism" targeted by the auxiliary request were not identified in Wonderland's statement of claim and that they appeared for the first time in Wonderland's reply to Cybex's statement of defence.
- Wonderland argued that Cybex's request for a panel review was inadmissible because Cybex was not disadvantaged by the order as the application was rejected.
- The Düsseldorf LD panel held that Cybex's application was admissible but unsuccessful on the merits. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's decision as it was based on the correct legal standard. An equivalence argument does not necessarily change the nature and scope of the dispute. The panel held that the judge-rapporteur had rightfully concluded that the fact that Wonderland seeks to claim infringement by equivalence for not only features 1.4 and 1.6 but also for features 1.9 and 1.10 did not alter the nature or scope of the dispute and therefore did not constitute an amendment of the case. The equivalence argument is still based on the same patent and directed to the same allegedly infringing products (namely, strollers with swivel locking devices).
- Cybex did not present any arguments to the panel that would have led them to reach a different conclusion on the applicability of Rule 263 RoP. The fact that the components affected by the extension of the equivalence claim were not designated as such (for example "cavity") in Wonderland's statement of claim did not mean that a different product was affected.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.