Wonderland v Sybex (UPC_CFI_807/2024 & UPC_CFI_334/3035)

Decision date:

05 August 2025

Court

Düsseldorf LD

Patent

EP 1 905 615

Full decision available here:

Osborne Clarke summary

In these proceedings between Wonderland and Cybex relating to a patent concerning wheels to strollers, the Düsseldorf LD made an early decision not to bifurcate and to hear Cybex's revocation counterclaim alongside Wonderland's infringement claim.
Under Article 33(3) UPCA, where a defendant counterclaims for revocation in proceedings for infringement brought in an LD, the LD must decide whether to proceed with both actions, bifurcate the case and refer the revocation action to the CD or refer both actions to the CD. If the LD hears the counterclaim, a technically qualified judge is to be appointed.
Rule 37.1 RoP requires the panel to decide the approach as soon as practicable after the close of written proceedings. However, under Rule 37.2 RoP, it may take an earlier decision if appropriate having considered the pleadings and given the parties an opportunity to be heard.
Here, the Düsseldorf LD exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and revocation counterclaim, stating that such an approach "seem[ed] to be appropriate in particular for reasons of efficiency". It also noted that it was preferable for both validity and infringement to be decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation by the same panel of judges, and that an early decision would set the framework for possible questions.
The parties had been heard and not objected to the approach.

Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.