LD The Hague, September 11, 2025, Order on provisional measures based on equivalence, UPC_CFI_479/2025

The challenged embodiments comprised an L-shaped strip that was made of plastic, not of metal. The patent claimed an “L-shaped metal strip”. The Court applied the test for equivalence adpoted in Plant-e v. Arkyne (LD The Hague of 22 November 2024, UPC_CFI_239/2023). It found equivalent infringement more likely than not. Especially, it held that it was irrelevant that the plastic strip was of a softer material compared to a metal strip. That the plastic strip was less resistant to torsion would be irrelevant for the function of the L-shaped strip when mounted on the cabinet.

The Court held that specific features of the patent-in-suit work synergistically and cannot be separated for the purpose of inventive step analysis. The main claim is directed to a cabinet in which a washing machine can be placed in an elevated position. Plate-like support means ensure vertical force transmission of the washing machine, and an L-shaped retaining member (metal strip) prevents the washing machine from sliding. The features “plate-like support” and “L-shaped retaining member” were held to work synergistically.

Objective Urgency/Necessity: Ongoing infringement causes irreparable harm (the type of product is not purchased often, irretrievable loss of sales and market share likely, price erosion).

Temporal Urgency: Applicants acted without undue delay after patent grant. Timeline: Patent grant published 2 April 2025; cease and desist letter on 19 May 2025; statement of claim on 28 May 2025. It did not harm that Applicants already knew on 23 December 2024 that their patent would be granted (EPO’s intention to grant) since the delay was less than 2 months from the publication of the grant of the patent to start these proceedings, not counting some time for an out of Court settlement attempt by mail.

Balance of Interests: Applicants’ interests outweigh Defendants’. The washing machine cabinets are Applicants’ only product and they need to build up their own market share. Defendants, in contrast, have many more other furniture items they sell. Their business impact will be relatively small.