December 29, 2025
I. CASE OVERVIEW
1. The Parties and the Patent
Claimant (Applicant):
Hewlett-Packard (HP), a multinational company and a major global manufacturer of printers, personal computers, and related consumables.
Defendants:
The proceedings initially involved two defendants:
• Andreas Rentmeister e.K. (Defendant 1)
• Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. (Defendant 2), a company incorporated in Shenzhen, China.
Patent-in-Suit:
European Patent EP 3 835 965 B1, entitled “Logic circuitry”. The patent concerns logic circuits used in replaceable printer components, in particular ink and toner cartridges, and addresses communication between the cartridge and the printer.
2. The Accused Products
The dispute concerns non-original, so-called “rebuilt” or “remanufactured” printer cartridges, specifically cartridge types 924 and 937, which are compatible with HP printers.
Defendant 2 was found to be offering and selling these cartridges through online marketplaces, including Amazon. The offers were accessible to customers in multiple UPC Contracting Member States, including Germany, France, and Italy, thereby establishing territorial jurisdiction under the UPC framework.
3. Procedural History
On 13 June 2025, HP filed an application for provisional measures before the Unified Patent Court, including a request for a preliminary injunction.
Defendant 1 settled rapidly with HP and did not contest the request for provisional measures. As a result, the court issued a default decision against Defendant 1.
Defendant 2, being domiciled outside the EU in China, proved difficult to serve via formal international service channels. HP made extensive efforts to effect service, including attempts to obtain voluntary acceptance of service. After significant delays and unsuccessful attempts, the court concluded that service had been carried out with sufficient diligence and deemed service effective as of 11 November 2025.
Despite being deemed served, Defendant 2 did not file any statement of defence or objection to HP’s application for provisional measures.
II. COURT’S ASSESSMENT
4. Infringement and Validity
Infringement
Based on the documentary evidence submitted by HP, including detailed technical analyses, test purchase documentation, and test logs, the court concluded that it was more likely than not that the cartridges sold by Defendant 2 directly and literally infringed Claim 13 of EP 3 835 965 B1.
In particular, HP demonstrated that the logic circuitry implemented in the accused cartridges:
• responds to a command transmitted by the printer,
• creates a low-voltage condition on the data bus,
• maintains this low-voltage condition for a defined duration, and
• performs this function independently of the clock signal on the data bus.
The court accepted this technical explanation without contradiction, as Defendant 2 failed to submit any counter-evidence.
Validity
Defendant 2 did not raise any objections against the validity of the patent. The patent had not been opposed within the opposition period and was not subject to any pending nullity actions.
Accordingly, for the purposes of provisional measures, the court considered the patent’s validity to be reasonably certain, which satisfied the UPC standard for granting a preliminary injunction.
5. Urgency and Balance of Interests
Urgency
The court carefully examined whether HP had acted with sufficient urgency. HP identified infringing offers on Amazon on 10 April 2025, promptly ordered samples, conducted technical testing, and completed its infringement analysis before filing the application for provisional measures on 13 June 2025.
The court held that this timeline demonstrated diligence and did not constitute undue delay.
Balance of Interests and Necessity
HP and Defendant 2 were found to be direct competitors in the market for printer cartridges. The court accepted HP’s argument that ongoing infringement would result in price erosion, loss of market share, and damage that could not easily be compensated by damages alone.
The court therefore held that provisional measures were necessary to preserve the status quo pending a final decision on the merits.
III. FINAL ORDER
6. Preliminary Injunction
The Unified Patent Court granted a preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
Defendant 2 was ordered to immediately cease making, offering, selling, importing, or otherwise commercialising the infringing cartridges in the following UPC Contracting Member States:
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
The order further imposed coercive penalty payments in the event of non-compliance, amounting to:
• up to EUR 1,000 per infringing cartridge, or
• up to EUR 250,000 per day for continued violations.
In addition, Defendant 2 was ordered to provide HP with comprehensive information regarding the origin, production, and distribution channels of the infringing products.
IV. STRATEGIC ADVICE BASED ON THE HP DECISION
This decision provides valuable guidance for both patent proprietors and alleged infringers involved in UPC preliminary injunction proceedings.
A. Strategic Lessons for Claimants (Patent Holders)
1. Build an Evidence-Rich Application
Applications for provisional measures must be self-contained and substantiated. Claimants should conduct test purchases, perform detailed technical analyses, and present a clear, feature-by-feature mapping of the asserted claims to the accused products.
2. Act with Demonstrable Urgency
Once infringement is identified and sufficient evidence has been gathered, applications should be filed promptly. A well-documented internal timeline helps rebut allegations of undue delay.
3. Maintain Procedural Discipline
Particular care must be taken when defendants are located outside the EU. Diligent compliance with service and notification requirements strengthens credibility and avoids procedural vulnerabilities.
B. Strategic Lessons for Defendants (Alleged Infringers)
The outcome for Shenzhen Moan Technology highlights that failure to participate is tantamount to conceding the case.
1. Engage Immediately
Upon service, defendants must promptly instruct qualified UPC counsel. The UPC operates under accelerated timelines, and inaction allows the court to accept the claimant’s allegations as uncontested.
2. Challenge the Pillars of the Injunction
a) Challenge Validity
Filing a revocation counterclaim and identifying relevant prior art can introduce sufficient doubt to prevent the grant of provisional measures.
b) Contest Infringement
Defendants should submit their own technical analyses and expert opinions to rebut the claimant’s infringement case.
c) Argue Proportionality
Where appropriate, defendants should argue that a preliminary injunction would be disproportionate, for example where the accused feature can be removed or redesigned with limited effort.
This article is intended for general informational purposes only.
Authors
Mingyan Xi