UPC_CFI_479/2025
ACT_25599/2025

Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
Local Division The Hague
delivered on 11/09/2025

concerning: provisional measures

CLAIMANTS
1) Washtower IP B.V.
(Applicant) - Enschedesestraat 300 - 7552 CN -
Hengelo - NL
Represented by Peter van
Schijndel
2) Washtower B.V.
(Applicant) - Enschedesestraat 300 - 7552 CN -
Hengelo - NL
Represented by Peter van
Schijndel

DEFENDANT/S
1) Wasombouw B.V.
(Defendant) - Frankrijkstraat 3 – 5171 PR -
Kaatsheuvel - NL
Withdrawn
2) INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS
GMBH
(Defendant) - Pyrmonter Straße 78 - 32676 -
Lügde - DE
Represented by Volkmar Henke
3) BEGA CONSULT INTERNATIONALE
HANDELSAGENTUR GMBH & CO. KG
(Defendant) - Siemensstraße 2 - 32676 -
Lügde - DE
Represented by Volkmar Henke
4) BEGA BBK SP. Z O.O. SP. K.UL.
(Defendant) - Poznańska 113A - PL 62-052 -
Komorniki - PL
Represented by Volkmar Henke
5) NEG NOVEX WHOLESALE COMPANY FOR
ELECTRICAL AND BUILDING SERVICES
ENGINEERING GMBH
(Defendant) - Chenover Straße 5 - 67117 -
Limburgerhof - DE
Represented by Volkmar Henke

PATENT AT ISSUE
Patent no. Proprietor/s
EP3522755B1 Washtower IP B.V.

DECIDING JUDGES
Presiding judge and Judge-rapporteur Edger Brinkman
Legally qualified judge Margot Kokke
Legally qualified judge Samuel Granata
Technically qualified judge Alessandro Sanchini

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English
Applicants are hereinafter collectively referred to as Washtower or “Applicants”. The application
against defendant 1, ‘Wasombouw’, was withdrawn (settled) shortly after the application was
filed. Defendants 2-5 are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”. Defendants 2-5 are
individually also referred to as IBBH, BEGA Consult, BEGA BBK and NEG Novex, respectively.

PROCEDURE
1. The following submissions of the parties are in the main case file:
- Application for preliminary measures of 28 May 2025, with exhibits A01-A39,
- Objection to the Application for preliminary measures of 16 July 2025, with exhibits
BP1-BP28 and 2 video files,
- Statement of reply to the objection of 29 July 2025, with exhibits A40-A44
- Rejoinder to reply to objection to the application for preliminary measures, with
exhibits BP29-BP31.
1.1. The oral hearing took place on 14 August 2025.

SUMMARY OF FACTS
2. The application is based on the following facts:
2.1. Applicants
2.1.1. Applicants are part of a family-owned and -operated business selling washing machines
and dryer cabinets based in Hengelo, The Netherlands. The company was founded by Mr.
who has a long history in the kitchen furniture industry. With his background in the design and the
construction of cabinets, Mr. developed a cabinet that can safely house a washing
machine (and/or washer dryer machine) at waist level. Such a cabinet allows for more ergonomic
use. With the cabinet, a user does not have to bend down when loading and unloading the washing
machine. The cabinets also allow for a tidy organization of the washing room with storing space
under the washing machine.
2.2. Defendants
2.2.1. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 belong to the BEGA group, a furniture wholesaler which consists of
several parallel subsidiaries, and which is particularly active in the segments of young living, self-
service and take-away furniture and which offers a range of products in various price segments.
The BEGA Group was founded over 20 years ago and employs over 300 people. Defendant 2) is a
company which, in addition to holding individual shareholdings, takes care of administrative
matters for the BEGA group. Defendant 5) is a client and partner of the BEGA group.
2.2.2. Defendant 3, BEGA Consult, had a prior relationship with Washtower. From 11 July 2019 to
31 July 2024, the BEGA group manufactured washing machine cabinets under a license from
Washtower. In the past, the BEGA group manufactured the cabinets of Washtower, for
Washtower. In addition, BEGA Consult was licensed, with permission to grant sublicenses to its
subsidiaries, to have other cabinets manufactured and sell those cabinets through brick-and-
mortar retail channels.
2.2.3. On 14 July 2023 the license agreement was terminated by Washtower, with a termination
term of 1 year and a sell-out period of 6 months. BEGA has acknowledged the termination of the
license agreement. Therefore, as from 1 August 2024 there is no longer a license in place
between BEGA Consult and Washtower. The sell-out period for product manufactured before 1
August 2024 ended on 1 February 2025.
2.2.4. IBBH operates the website of the BEGA Group (bega-gruppe.de) and is the parent company
of BEGA Consult and BEGA BBK (among others). Furthermore, BEGA BBK operates the website
www.laundreezy.de. Defendant 5, NEG Novex, operates the website www.respekta.de, which of-
fers kitchen solutions and owns the EU and German (and other) Respekta trademarks.
2.2.5. Defendants 2-4 are involved in the manufacture, offer and placing on the market of the
“Laundreezy” cabinets, pictured here:
Defendants are (also) involved in the manufacture, offer and placing on the market of the “Re-
spekta Clara” washing machine cabinet, pictured below.
2.3. The patent
2.3.1. The patent EP 3 522 755 B1 (hereinafter “the patent” or “EP 755”), in the name of Wash-
tower IP B.V., was filed on 9 October 2017 as a PCT application in the English language, claiming
priority from EP application EP16192967 of 8 October 2016. The grant of the patent was published
by the European Patent Office (“EPO”) in the Patent Bulletin on 2 April 2025. Unitary effect was
registered on 6 May 2025. The opposition period before the EPO is still running: at the time of
drafting this order, no opposition has been filed against the grant and the patent has not been
subject of proceedings before the UPC or any national courts. Unitary effect for the patent was
registered on 6 May 2025. At the oral hearing of 14 August 2025, following a written communica-
tion submitted the day before, Defendants 2-5 announced that they had lodged a revocation ac-
tion against the patent on 13 August 2025 before the Central Division in Milan.
2.3.2. The patent is titled “Piece of furniture in which a washing machine can be placed and
method for manufacture thereof”. The patent has 14 claims: 13 product claims and one method
claim. Applicants assert product claims 1-5 and 9-11.
2.3.3. The patent discloses a cabinet with two compartments placed one on top of the other. The
top compartment is designed to accommodate a washing machine. The bottom compartment is a
storage compartment.
2.3.4. The independent claim 1 reads as follows, divided into features:
Claim 1:
1. Piece of furniture (1) in which a washing machine (2) can be placed, comprising:
1.1 - two substantially vertical side walls (3),
1.2 - a substantially horizontal bottom wall (4),
1.3 - a substantially horizontal top wall (5), and
1.4 - a substantially horizontal carrier (6) for the washing machine (2), placed between the bottom wall
(4) and the top wall (5),
1.5 wherein the side walls (3) are placed on top of the bottom wall (4)
1.6 and wherein the carrier (6) is fixed at a distance above the bottom wall (4), thus forming a storage
space between the bottom wall (4) and the carrier (6)
characterized in that
1.7 one or more support means (12) for transmitting vertical forces are placed between the bottom wall
(4) and the carrier (6);
1.8 in that the support means (12) are plate-like and placed substantially parallel to the side walls (3)
and/or the rear side;
1.9 and in that a retaining member (24) is arranged at a front side of the carrier (6),
1.9.1 wherein the retaining member (24) is formed by an L-shaped metal strip having an upright
leg (17) extending in front of the carrier (6), and a horizontal leg (25) extending below the
carrier (6),
1.9.2 and wherein the horizontal leg (25) is fixedly connected to the carrier (6) by a number of
connectors (26), e.g. screws.
2.3.5. The following table and pictures, taken from the patent and annotated by Applicants with
colours, provide a visual reference of each feature of claim 1, as visible in Figures 2 and 5 of the
patent:
2.3.6. The top figure (annotated Figure 2 of the patent) is a front view of the cabinet, showing
features 1.1 through 1.8; the bottom figure (annotated Figure 5 of the patent) is a lateral view
showing group of features 1.9.
2.3.7. More in detail, Figure 2 shows a piece of furniture (1) destined to accommodate a washing
machine in the top compartment. The piece of furniture has two vertical side walls (3), a horizontal
bottom wall (4) and a horizontal top wall (5). Between the two horizontal walls, a third horizontal
shelf, the carrier (6), is placed, to hold the washing machine. The distance of the carrier 6 from the
bottom wall is such to form a storage space. The side walls of the cabinet are placed on top of the
bottom wall.
2.3.8. Figure 5, reproduced in a larger size below, shows a longitudinal sectional view of an em-
bodiment of the invention. It illustrates a retaining member 24 in the form of an L-shaped metal
strip, with an upright leg 17 (purple) and a horizontal leg 25 (green) extending below the carrier 6.
In Figure 5, reference number 17 is erroneously used twice: the reference number at the top of
the figure, pointing to the cover, should be 16, not 17. This typo does not affect the intelligibility
of the figure or the patent (and no party made a point of it).

2.3.9. The description contains the following:
[0001] The invention relates to a piece of furniture according to the preamble of claim 1.
[0002] Such a piece of furniture is per se known as a cabinet for a washing machine and is sometimes also referred to
as washer cabinet. In such a washer cabinet the bottom wall, the top wall, the side walls and the carrier are generally
manufactured from a high-grade, usually wood (fibre)-based, pressed board material. Because a washing machine
may vibrate during use, the piece of furniture comes to be under high load.
[0003] It is an object of the invention to improve the per se known piece of furniture of the type stated in the preamble.
The object of the invention can in particular be to improve the strength of the per se known piece of furniture.
[0004] This object is achieved with a piece of furniture according to claim 1. Placing the side walls on top of the bottom
wall instead of adjacently of and against the bottom wall, as in usual construction methods, results in a structure which
is able to bear a load and transmit this load to the bottom wall without fixing means between the side walls and the
bottom wall concentrating the load. Distributing the load over a larger surface area of the bottom wall results in a
lower pressure at the same load, which does not result in damage to the piece of furniture, even if the load is so high
that in usual construction methods this would be the case.
(…)
[0009] According to the invention the carrier is fixed at a distance above the bottom wall, thus forming a storage space
between the bottom wall and the carrier. The distance can amount to more than 40 centimetres and is preferably in
the order of 50 centimetres, whereby the upper surface of the carrier is situated about 55 centimetres above the
ground surface. Placing the carrier higher than the bottom wall makes the washing machine more easily accessible to
a user, who is then required to bend down less far in order to load and unload the washing machine, and creates an
extra storage space below the carrier. Moreover, this placement allows the carrier, which is fixedly connected to the
side walls on opposite sides, to act as a brace and provide additional stiffness and stability to the piece of furniture.
[0010] According to the invention one or more support means for transmitting vertical forces are placed between the bottom wall and the carrier. Placing support means between the bottom wall and carrier enables vertical forces to be transferred from the carrier to the bottom wall in effective manner, without heavily loading the side walls herein.
[0011] The one or more support means between the bottom wall and the carrier are plate -like and placed substantially parallel to the side walls and/or the rear side. Giving the support means a plate-like form results in a distribution
of the vertical forces over a relatively large surface area, while only a small amount of the storage space is taken up
by the support means.
(…)
[0014] In an embodiment of the piece of furniture according to the invention this is achieved partly in that the carrier
is provided on its upper side with a cover plate, particularly a metal cover plate. Providing the carrier with a (metal) cover plate protects the plate material of the carrier against moisture, while the carrier constructed of plate material
and metal is at the same time strong enough to carry the load of the washing machine. The extra weight of the metal
cover plate provides additional resistance against vibrations. The metal cover plate itself of course also has to be
protected against moisture, for instance by a coating or other surface treatment. A fibre- reinforced plastic could also
be used as material for the cover plate, instead of metal. Such a plastic is likewise strong and stiff and well able to
withstand moisture.
[0015] The piece of furniture according to the invention is provided with a retaining member arranged at a front side
of the carrier. Owing to the presence of such a retaining member, a washing machine which is placed on the carrier
cannot slide off the plate due to vibrations and consequently fall. The retaining member is substantially L-shaped and
may include an upright edge which also provides additional stiffness. The cover plate can also be provided with upright
edges along the sides, which prevents moisture penetrating into the plate material of the side walls and/or of the
support means.
(…)
[0027] In Figure 5 an alternative arrangement of the piece of furniture 1 according to the invention is shown, in which
the carrier 6 is covered by a plate 16 which not only has a downward bent edge 19 at the rear, but also at the front.
In this embodiment the retaining member 24 is formed by an L-shaped metal strip having an upright leg 17 extending
in front of the carrier 6 and the bent edge 19 of the cover plate 16, and a horizontal leg 25 extending below the car-
rier 6. This horizontal leg 25 is fixedly connected to the carrier 6 by a number of connectors 26, e.g. screws.

STATEMENT OF FORMS OF ORDER SOUGHT BY APPLICANTS
3. Applicants are seeking the following orders
I. Injunction:
I.B Against Defendants 2 – 4
to hand down an injunction against Defendants 2 – 4, effective as of the day of service on the defendants, or-
dering them to cease and desist any infringement of EP 3 522 755 B1, and in particular the making, offering,
placing on the market or using, or importing or storing the product for those purposes, of the Laundreezy washing machine cabinets falling within the scope of the Patent, as described in this application, or any other washing machine cabinet that implements the invention as protected by EP 3 522 755 B1, in all UPC Contracting Member States for which the Patent has effect;
I.C. Against Defendants 2 – 5:
to hand down an injunction against Defendants 2 – 5, effective as of the day of service on the defendant, ordering them to cease and desist any infringement of EP 3 522 755 B1, and in particular the making, offering, placing on the market or using, or importing or storing the product for those purposes, of the Respekta washing machine cabinets falling within the scope of the Patent, as described in this application, or any other washing machine cabinet that implements the invention as protected by EP 3 522 755 B1, in all UPC Contracting Member States for which the Patent has effect;

II. Information:
II.B. to order Defendant 2 – 4 , to provide counsel for Washtower, within 4 weeks after service of the order
rendered in this matter, with a written statement, substantiated with appropriate documentation for the wash-
ing machine cabinets according to rec. I. in in all UPC Contracting Member States for which the Patent has effect,
of:
i. the origin and distribution channels of the washing machine cabinets (including the full names and ad-
dresses of the legal entities that are involved);
ii. the quantities delivered, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained; and
iii. the identity of any party involved in the production or distribution of the washing machine cabinets
according to rec. I.I.B (including the full names and addresses of the legal entities that are involved).
II.C. to order Defendant 2 – 5 , to provide counsel for Washtower, within 4 weeks after service of the order
rendered in this matter, with a written statement, substantiated with appropriate documentation for the wash-
ing machine cabinets according to rec. I.C, in all UPC Contracting Member States for which the Patent has effect,
of:
i. the origin and distribution channels (including the full names and addresses of the legal entities that are
involved);
ii. the quantities delivered, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained; and
iii. the identity of any party involved in the production or distribution of washing machine cabinets accord-
ing to rec. I.I.C., (including the full names and addresses of the legal entities that are involved).
III. Recall
to order the Defendants to send, within 7 (seven) days after service of the order rendered in this matter, a registered letter to all its professional customers, resellers and stockists in in all UPC Contracting Member States for
which the Patent has effect, to whom it has supplied Infringing Products, in the language of the relevant party or
in English, containing only the following text and no caption:
“The UPC, Local Division The Hague has ruled in an order on provisional measures dated [insert date] that it is more likely than not that by marketing [Laundreezy/Respekta/Wasombouw] washing machine cabinets, we are infringing the patent rights of Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. These products may not be offered, sold, delivered, used, or kept in stock by
[Laundreezy/Respekta/Wasombouw] 1 for the time for which the provisional measures are in place. The order of the UPC, Local Division The Hague is not final and can be appealed by [Laundreezy/Respekta/Wasombouw]2 .
We hereby request that you return all products of the following models [insert models] in your possession to us within seven days of the date of this letter. We will reimburse you for the purchase price and all costs associated with returning the products to us.”
or a letter with such content or form as the court in good justice will determine, all this under the obligation to provide simultaneous digital copies of all letters sent to Washtower's lawyers;
IV. Penalty sums to order that:
i. for each individual case of violation of the order under I. the respective Defendant must pay to the Court a
recurring penalty payment of up to EUR 10,000 (repeatedly if necessary); and
ii. for each individual case of non-compliance with the orders under II-III, the respective Defendant must pay to the Court a recurring penalty payment of up to EUR 10.000 per day, or part of a day counting as an entire day,
or up to EUR 50,000 per day, or part of a day counting as an entire day, that the noncompliance continues.
These penalties will be determined by the Local Division in The Hague upon request by Applicants (Art. 62(1) UPCA; R. 354.3 RoP).
V. Cost award:
V.A. to order that Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Washtower an interim award on the
legal costs as provided under Article 69 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement jo Rule 211.1(d) of the Rules of Procedure, with the proviso that any amount paid by one Defendant shall discharge the other Defendants for that same amount; and
V.B. to set the amount of the interim costs award to the sum of the court fees (EUR 6,600) plus the
recoverable legal fees of Applicants, in accordance with the Annex to the Scale of ceilings for recoverable costs.
1 The Court understands: Defendants
2 idem
VI. Direct enforceability
VI.A. to declare the above orders directly effective and enforceable.

DEFENDANTS’ POSITION
4. Defendants argue that Applicants’ request for preliminary measures is unfounded in several respects. They allege that the challenged embodiments do not realize feature 1.7, nor do they
make use of feature 1.9.1 (metal L-shape), either literally or by equivalence. They also claim the
patent is invalid. The revocation action to be filed by the Defendants has a high chance of success
on the grounds of added matter and lack of inventive step. They also argue that the request is not
urgent, either objectively or temporally, and that their interests outweigh those of Applicants. Fi-
nally, Defendants request security.

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER
Validity: Added matter
5. Defendants contend that the L-shaped retaining member as introduced into claim 1 during
the examination phase of the patent constitutes an impermissible amendment, since it introduced
subject-matter that extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed.
5.1.1. This objection mirrors the position previously taken by the Examination Division of the EPO,
which relied on Article 123(2) EPC to refuse the grant of the patent. Applicants appealed the deci-
sion, and the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO reversed the Examination Division’s decision.
Already from this, it can be deduced that it is more likely than not that the patent will not be found
to contain added matter. In as far as necessary, the Court finds as follows.
5.1.2. On the substance, it is noted that the L-shaped retaining member of group of features 1.9
is first mentioned on page 3, lines 20-26 of the application for EP755 (WO 2018/065631), which
text is identical to paragraph [0015] of the patent:
In one embodiment, the piece of furniture according to the invention is provided with a
retaining member arranged at a front side of the carrier. Owing to the presence of such a
retaining member, a washing machine which is placed on the carrier cannot slide off the
plate due to vibrations and consequently fall. The retaining member is substantially L-
shaped and may include an upright edge which also provides additional stiffness. The cover
plate can also be provided with upright edges along the sides, which prevents moisture
penetrating into the plate material of the side walls and/or of the support means.
This paragraph discloses a stand-alone retaining member, separate from the cover plate. The retaining member is L-shaped. Since the retaining member must prevent the washing machine from
sliding off the shelf, the skilled in the art understands that, as shown in the figures of the patent,
the upright leg extends above the carrier shelf. This paragraph is silent about how the L-shaped
retaining member is connected to the carrier 6.
5.1.3. The patent application goes on to disclose two embodiments: in a first embodiment, shown
in Figure 3, the retaining member is part of a cover plate 16 covering the carrier. In an alternative
embodiment, shown in Figure 5, the cover plate 16 and an L-shaped retaining member are shown
as separate elements. In this respect, page 6, lines 26-31 of the application (paragraph [0027] of
the patent) describes the embodiment of the retaining member as shown in Figure 5.

In Figure 5 an alternative arrangement of the piece of furniture 1 according to the invention
is shown, in which the carrier 6 is covered by a plate 16 which not only has a downward
bent edge 19 at the rear, but also at the front. In this embodiment the retaining member
24 is formed by an L-shaped metal strip having an upright leg 17 extending in front of the
carrier 6 and the bent edge 19 of the cover plate 16, and a horizontal leg 25 extending below
the carrier 6. This horizontal leg 25 is fixedly connected to the carrier 6 by a number of
connectors 26, e.g. screws
In this “alternative arrangement”, the upper leg of the L-shaped metal strip is said to cover the
bent edge of the cover plate 16. Additionally, connectors 26 (screws) are mentioned, to fixedly
connect the horizontal leg of the strip to the carrier 6.
5.1.4. Defendants argue (page 40 of the Objection) that, in the embodiment of Figure 5
“the retaining member is fixed to the carrier. Figure 5 shows that the horizontal leg 25 of
retaining member 17 can only be fixed to the underside of the carrier 6. Because of the cover
plate 16 and especially the downward bent edge 19 it is not possible to connect the hori-
zontal leg 25 of the retaining member to the upper side of the carrier and this is why “the
horizontal leg 25 extends below the carrier”.
Defendants also refer to Figure 3 to submit that an additional structural link exists between the
cover plate and the retaining member, including the position and fixation of the retaining member
to the carrier. Accordingly, it is Defendants’ opinion that claim 1, which requires a retaining mem-
ber in the form of an L-shaped metal strip, but is silent about the cover plate, breaks such structural
link and violates Art. 123(2)EPC.
5.1.5. The Court concurs with the reasoning adopted by the Board of Appeal of the EPO, finding
that the retaining member is disclosed independently of the cover plate, both in the general de-
scription and in the original claim structure. Specifically, page 3, lines 20-26 of the application as
cited above provides a general disclosure of the retaining member without establishing a neces-
sary connection to the cover plate. This interpretation is further supported by the original claim
set: sub-claim 11 referred to the cover plate, while sub-claim 12 introduced the retaining element.
Claim 12 depended on any of the preceding claims, not exclusively on claim 11. As noted in Exhibit
A18, section 1.5, this drafting structure reinforces the notion that the retaining member is not
inherently linked to the presence of a cover plate.
5.1.6. The Court finds provisionally that there is no inextricable link between the retaining mem-
ber and the cover plate. This conclusion applies also to the specific embodiment illustrated in Fig-
ure 5, where the retaining member is depicted as an L-shaped metal strip screwed to the bottom
face of the carrier shelf. While the embodiment foresees the inclusion of a cover plate (16), this is
described as intended to protect the carrier from moisture, and the skilled person would readily
understand that this cover is technically not essential to the function of the retaining member.
5.1.7. The purpose of the retaining member is to prevent the washing machine from sliding off
the carrier, a function it performs independently of any moisture-protection features provided by
the cover plate.
5.1.8. In conclusion, according to the Court, it is more likely than not that the patent in suit does
not violate Art. 123(2)EPC.

Novelty
6. Novelty is not disputed.
Inventive step
Inventive step starting from D1
7. Defendants refer to D1 which was used by the EPO to establish the two part-form of the
claim. D1 is the assembly manual of the "BESTA Shelf unit - AA-199377-12” of Inter IKEA Systems
B.V., as published on 7 June 2012, which was retrieved in the search phase by the EPO.
7.1.1. Defendants have annotated document D1 using Applicants’ colour scheme to show that it
discloses all the features of claim 1 except for features 1.7-1.8 (plate-like element for force trans-
mission) and group of features 1.9 (L-shaped retaining member). Applicants contest that D1 is a
realistic point for discussing inventive step, since it refers to a cabinet that could never hold a
washing machine, both because of its dimensions and because of its framework and structure. A
conventional washing machine would not fit in the cabinet, and the weight of the washing machine
would make it collapse. Defendants note that washing machine exist in different sizes, including
small sizes.
7.1.2. While the Court tends to agree with Applicants that D1 is not a realistic starting point, it
also notes that D1 was identified by the EPO as the closest prior art document. The issue can be
left undecided in these preliminary relief proceedings.
7.1.3. Irrespective of whether D1 should be or should not be considered as a realistic starting
point, the court believes that D1, combined with any of the prior art documents submitted by
Defendants, does not prejudice inventiveness of the claim.
7.1.4. In paragraphs 108–109 of their Objection, Defendants argue that features 1.8 (vertical
plate for force transmission) and 1.9 (L-shaped retaining member) address distinct technical
problems, and therefore may be anticipated independently through the combination of separate
prior art documents.
7.1.5. The Court disagrees: it finds with Applicants that the two features work synergistically to
address the challenge of properly supporting a washing machine during operation. Specifically, the
Court observes that feature 1.8 ensures that vertical forces and vibrations, generated during the
spinning cycle of a washing machine in operation, are effectively transmitted and absorbed; fea-
ture 1.9 prevents horizontal displacement, acting as a barrier to horizontal movement that could
otherwise cause the appliance to slide off the carrier shelf. These two mechanisms are not a mere
aggregation. The vertical plate provides the necessary load-bearing capacity, while the retaining
member secures the appliance against dynamic lateral forces. Together, they form a synergistic
solution to the problem of stabilising a heavy, vibrating appliance (a washing machine) within a
cabinet structure. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the claimed invention cannot be sepa-
rated into isolated features for the purpose of inventive step analysis.
7.1.6. Defendants identify features 1.7 and 1.8 in D2 (WO 2004/099485 A1), which provides ver-
tical ribs in a substructure for washing machines. Below in a figure annotated by Defendants.
D2 also teaches (in translation from German) that the “The side walls extend slightly beyond the
top plate 5, forming lateral stops 4. These prevent the machine from being moved past the side
edges of the top plate 5 and potentially falling off” (para 117 of the Objection”). Applicants note
that D2 is a hollow, sealed box on top of which a washing machine can be placed. The box can be
filled with water, to give it substantial weight, which is important, because a washing machine
needs a solid and sturdy support especially during the spin cycle.” (Reply, para 61). Applicants fur-
ther note that “D2 is not a cabinet, and the washing machine is not placed in it, but on top of it.
There is also no separate retaining member”. Defendants reply at paras 51-53 of the Rejoinder
stating that Applicants read in the claim additional limitations that are not part of the claim, like
form and size of the storage place.
7.1.7. The Court finds Applicants’ arguments more convincing than those of Defendants. D2 dis-
closes a water ballast tank. It is not evident why a person skilled in the art would be motivated to
consider a water filled ballast tank when seeking for improvements to the cabinet of D1 for the
purpose of supporting a washing machine in operation. Even if such a combination were pursued,
it would not result in the invention defined in claim 1. Notably, combining D1 and D2 would eliminate the storage space described in feature 1.6, deviating from the claimed solution.
7.1.8. D2 also fails to disclose a retaining member. In particular, the L-shaped metal strip described in group of feature 1.9 —which serves to prevent the washing machine from sliding off the
front edge — is absent. Defendants argue that incorporating such a retaining element and securing

it to the carrier shelf would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. To support this, they cite
several prior art documents featuring L-shaped members. However, the Court finds no reason for
the skilled person to combine any of these references with D1 and D2. Moreover, the Court does
not consider that such a combination would result in the invention as defined in claim 1.
7.1.9. D3 (EP 1 227 182 A2), as illustrated below by Figures 1 and 2, discloses a carrier for a wash-
ing machine composed of four L-shaped profiles designed to accommodate the appliance. How-
ever, it does not disclose a retaining member within the meaning of group of features 1.9, which
specifically refers to an L-shaped retaining element mounted on the carrier to prevent the washing
machine from sliding off the support. Furthermore, the four-sided L-shaped structure described in
D3 does not appear to be compatible with the configuration of D1, and thus cannot be readily
applied or combined with it.
7.1.10. Similar supporting structures and similar considerations apply to the pedestals of D4 (DE
32 13 420 A1) and D5 (DE 10 2005 008 438 A1) (figures 1 of D4 and D5 shown below).
7.1.11. D6 (DE102011080193A1) does not relate to washing machines, but rather to household
cooking appliances, such as microwave ovens placed side by side. While D6 mentions L-shaped
strips, paragraph [0037] of the description clarifies that these strips are fastened to both the ap-
pliance and the carrier, and appear to serve primarily aesthetic purposes. This arrangement is un-
suitable for a vibrating appliance like a washing machine, which is subject to dynamic forces that
can cause displacement. Moreover, the configuration disclosed in D6 differs fundamentally from
the arrangement required by the invention as defined in the claim of the patent in suit.
7.1.12. D7 (EP2631382A2) discloses an L-shaped metal member attached to the edge of a plate.
However, the context of D7 pertains to platforms designed for workers to stand on, not to appli-
ances such as washing machines. The L-shaped members serve to prevent the board from sliding
when placed on inclined surfaces, such as rooftops. This function is fundamentally different from
that of a retaining member as defined in EP755. Accordingly, the Court does not provisionally con-
sider the element disclosed in D7 to constitute a retaining member within the meaning of group
of features 1.9. The figures below show Figure 1 of D7, as annotated by Defendants, and Figure 6
from the original disclosure.
Inventive step starting from D8
7.1.13. In the Objection, Defendants referred to D8 (DE 39 41 687 A1) with reference to dependent
claims 9, 10 and 11. Additionally, in Section V of the Objection, Defendants briefly introduced an
alternative inventive step attack for claim 1 based on the combination of D8 and D6. This argument
was presented without substantial elaboration and merely referred to explanations previously
provided in a separate protective letter. The Court notes the lack of detailed reasoning in the cur-
rent submission and considers that, in the absence of a clear and substantiated argument, this line
of attack does not convincingly challenge the inventive step of the claimed invention. The protec-
tive letter cannot be incorporated by reference, given the word limitations given by the JR (to
which Defendants did not object).
7.1.14. In the Reply to the Objection and at the oral hearing, Applicants accepted the discussion
also with respect to this combination of prior art documents, which are therefore hereby consid-
ered by the Court.
7.1.15. D8 is a cabinet for a fridge, as shown in the picture below, annotated by Defendants:
7.1.16. In this regard, Applicants note that D8 contains no explicit disclosure indicating that the
side walls are positioned on top of the bottom wall. Defendants rely solely on the figure above to
support their interpretation. However, as illustrated in the annotated figure below, Applicants con-
tend that the visual representation does not unambiguously demonstrate such a structural ar-
rangement. Consequently, the alleged configuration cannot be derived from D8.
7.1.17. The Court agrees. The figure does not depict any line or structural demarcation between
the side walls and the bottom wall. As a result, it remains ambiguous whether the side walls are
positioned beside, above, or integrally formed with the bottom wall. This prevents a conclusion
regarding the actual arrangement of the components. Applicants therefore rightly argue that fea-
ture 1.5 is not disclosed in D8.
7.1.18. Applicants further note that D8 lacks any plate-like elements supporting the carrier accord-
ing to features 1.7-1.8. In this respect, Defendants make reference to the rear walls as disclosed in
the paragraphs bridging column 2 and 3 of D8 (paras 62 and 63 of the Rejoinder). These para-
graphs, in English machine translation, recite:
The rear walls (8) are each manufactured from a blank in the dimensions of the associated
cupboard compartment (6 or 7) and are connected to support stops (12) (Fig. 3) provided
on the furniture body sides of the cupboard compartments (6, 7). The support stops (12) are
designed as magnetic catches or the like, with each removable rear wall (8) being provided
with a handle element (13). The handle element (13) can be realized by a simple hole that
can be gripped behind with the finger, which is expediently provided in the lower cupboard
compartment area in the rear wall (8). For aesthetic reasons, this hole can also be closed
with a cover cap (15) in the colour of the rear wall (8).
During the oral hearing, Applicants stressed that the rear walls described in D8 are not structural
components capable of bearing weight. Rather, they are described as panels secured by magnets,
serving merely to close off the rear side of the structure. As such, these panels cannot support any
load or transfer forces, particularly those generated by a vibrating appliance such as a washing
machine.
7.1.19. The Court agrees. In conclusion, D8 does not appear to disclose at least features 1.5, 1.7,
1.8 and 1.9. The combination of D8 with D6, previously discussed with reference to the D1+D2+D6
combination, would therefore fail to anticipate, without inventive skill, all the features of claim 1.

Infringement
8. The cabinets manufactured and/or distributed by Defendants and challenged by Applicants
are referred to as Respekta-Clara and Laundreezy.
Respekta-Clara
8.1.1. The picture below shows Defendants’ representation of Respekta-Clara, as depicted at
page 17 of the Objection:
With respect to features 1.4 and 1.6, Defendants argue that the Respekta-Clara comprises two
parallel horizontal plates— a lower blue plate and an upper red plate — rather than a single carrier.
They assert that only the blue bottom plate is connected to the side walls (B96), which themselves
are joined to the red bottom wall. The side walls (B94 and B96) are structurally distinct, with B94
resting on top of B96, thereby forming separate compartments.
8.1.2. According to Defendants, no horizontal plate in this configuration corresponds to the car-
rier defined in Claim 1. Specifically, they contend that the lower blue plate serves as a storage
compartment but does not support the washing machine, while the upper red plate supports the
washing machine but does not provide storage space. Furthermore, they note that the top wall of
the lower compartment (blue) and the bottom wall of the upper compartment (red) are merely
supported by the side walls—a solution known in the prior art—with no transmission of vertical
forces through the rear wall.
8.1.3. In contrast, Applicants submit that the two horizontal plates (red and blue) are fastened
together by eight screws, thereby forming a single structural element. This integrated configura-
tion, according to Applicants, satisfies the requirements of features 1.4 and 1.6, as it both supports
the washing machine and provides a storage compartment.

8.1.4. With respect to features 1.7 and 1.8, Defendants argue that vertical forces are not
transmitted through a plate-like element, but rather through dowels and specialized plastic corner
elements, as stated in paragraphs 67 and 68 of the Objection. Although a vertical plate is present
and aligned parallel to the rear of the cabinet, Defendants maintain that a visible gap (slit) exists
between the carrier and the vertical plate. According to their submission, this gap/slit indicates
that the carrier does not rest on the plate, and therefore the plate does not contribute to the
transmission of vertical forces. In support of this position, Defendants have submitted
photographs and a video showing the gap.
8.1.5. Additionally, Defendants submitted a video depicting a partially assembled Respekta-Clara
cabinet loaded with approximately 80 kilograms of bottles. In the video, a strip of paper is visibly
passed between the carrier and the rear vertical plate, with the purpose of demonstrating the
existence of a gap between these components. This visual evidence is presented to support De-
fendants’ assertion that the carrier does not rest on the vertical plate and, consequently, that no
vertical force is transmitted through it.

8.1.6. Conversely, Applicants assert that the rear vertical plate is in direct contact with the carrier
and effectively transmits vertical forces to the bottom wall. To support this position, Applicants
submit video evidence demonstrating the absence of any gap between the carrier and the rear
plate. In particular, Annex A41 is a video file showing that a thin strip of paper cannot be inserted
between the two components — especially when the washing machine is in operation. Applicants
further note, as stated in paragraphs 27–28 of the Reply, that full contact between the back wall
and the carrier is maintained both during and after the spin cycle.
8.1.7. With reference to feature group 1.9, Defendants argue that the L-shaped retaining element
in the Respekta-Clara cabinet is made of plastic rather than metal. They further note that a thick
rubber sheet is placed on top of the carrier to assist in preventing the washing machine from sliding
or falling during operation. In response, Applicants contend that the plastic used is sufficiently rigid
and functions as a technical equivalent to a metal strip. Applicants maintains that the material
substitution does not alter the structural or functional characteristics of the retaining element.
Moreover, the rubber sheet is considered an auxiliary component, which does not replace or mod-
ify the core retaining function provided by the L-shaped strip. Therefore, Applicants assert that the
configuration still satisfies the requirements of group of features 1.9 by way of equivalence.
8.1.8. At page 33 of Objection Defendants admit that “it is not disputed that the L-shaped strip
of feature 1.9,1 on the one hand and the plastic strips of Respekta Clara and Laundreezy are in-
tended to solve the same problem (preventing falling of the machine)” but stress that “they do not
solve the problem with the same efficiency”.
Laundreezy
8.1.9. The Laundreezy as annotated on Page 22 of the Objection, with the plate-like support
means in pink located at the rear side, is a cabinet that appears to be very similar to the Respekta
Clara. Apparently, it differs from Respekta Clara in that the side walls are continuous (one wall per
side):

Defendants’ arguments largely reiterate previously submitted points regarding the Respekta Clara
and focus on similar mechanical and structural aspects of the cabinet design. In particular, they
refer to:
- Force transmission occurring via dowels and triangular supports, as illustrated in the im-
ages at paragraphs 79–80 of the Objection;
- The presence of gaps between the carrier and the rear plate, with the assertion that the
rear plate does not transmit vertical forces;
- The L-shaped retaining strip, constructed from plastic, which is supplemented by a thick
rubber sheet placed atop the carrier to prevent the washing machine from sliding or falling.
8.1.10. Again, Defendants have submitted a video showing that, in a static configuration — i.e.,
with no washing machine placed on the carrier and in operation— a thin strip of paper can be
inserted through the gap between the vertical rear plate and the horizontal carrier. This, similarly,
is intended to illustrate the absence of contact and, by implication, the lack of vertical force trans-
mission through the rear plate.
Applicants support their position in the same way, with a video showing contact between the ver-
tical plate and carrier shelf, both when a washing machine is in operation and when the machine
is turned off (Annex A42).
Decision of the Court
8.1.11. The discussion between the parties focuses on the plate-like support means of features
1.7-1.8 for transmitting vertical forces, placed between the carrier and the bottom wall, and the
group of features 1.9, concerning a retaining member in the form of an L-shaped strip made of
metal.
Plate-like support means
8.1.12. With reference to features 1.7 -1.8, one or more plate-like elements are placed parallel
either to the side walls or the rear side. The patent shows vertical “plates” (highlighted in pink)
that extend between the carrier shelf and the bottom shelf. In the patent, it seems clear that this
plate-like element must be in contact both with the (upper face of the) red bottom wall and with
the (lower face of the) green carrier. Vertical forces induced by the weight of the washing machine
resting on the carrier can therefore be sustained and transmitted by the vertical plate(s). According
to Defendants, however, features 1.7-1.8 should be interpreted to match the embodiment of Fig-
ure 2 of EP755, where three different vertical plates, one at the rear at two at the sides, create a
U-shaped support to hold and support the carrier shelf (page 17 of the Objection). Conversely,
Applicants notes that claim 1 requires one or more plate-like support means for transmitting ver-
tical forces. Accordingly, Applicants submit that the requirement is satisfied by the presence of a
single plate-like support element, irrespective of any additional support structures such as dowels
or triangular reinforcements.
8.1.13. The Court agrees with Applicants. Indeed, the claim recites that one or more plate-like
means should support the carrier. It can therefore also be just one. While of course affording more
support, a U-shaped set of support means like in Figure 2 is not required. The purpose of the sup-
port means is that it transmits vertical forces in a meaningful way. Of course, these support means
are not the only things supporting the carrier. The side walls will also take an important part of the
vertical forces as is made plain in [0009]-[0010]:
[0009] According to the invention the carrier is fixed at a distance above the bottom wall, thus
forming a storage space between the bottom wall and the carrier. The distance can amount to
more than 40 centimetres and is preferably in the order of 50 centimetres, whereby the upper sur-
face of the carrier is situated about 55 centimetres above the ground surface. Placing the carrier
higher than the bottom wall makes the washing machine more easily accessible to a user, who is
then required to bend down less far in order to load and unload the washing machine, and creates
an extra storage space below the carrier. Moreover, this placement allows the carrier, which is
fixedly connected to the side walls on opposite sides, to act as a brace and provide additional stiff-
ness and stability to the piece of furniture.
[0010] According to the invention one or more support means for transmitting vertical forces are
placed between the bottom wall and the carrier. Placing support means between the bottom wall
and carrier enables vertical forces to be transferred from the carrier to the bottom wall in effective
manner, without heavily loading the side walls herein.
8.1.14. From these paragraphs, it can be taken that the carrier is “fixedly connected to the side
walls” and that the side walls are not heavily loaded. A skilled person would therefore not assume
that the support means is/are such in the patented cabinet that they would take all the vertical
forces, but rather that they would take a meaningful amount to ensure that the side walls are not
“heavily loaded”. The fact that the side walls also take a substantial load is made clear by the fea-
ture of the claimed invention (Feature 1.5) whereby the side walls are placed on top of the bottom
wall:
[0004] This object is achieved with a piece of furniture according to claim 1. Placing the side walls
on top of the bottom wall instead of adjacently of and against the bottom wall, as in usual con-
struction methods, results in a structure which is able to bear a load and transmit this load to the
bottom wall without fixing means between the side walls and the bottom wall concentrating the
load. Distributing the load over a larger surface area of the bottom wall results in a lower pressure
at the same load, which does not result in damage to the piece of furniture, even if the load is so
high that in usual construction methods this would be the case.
8.1.15. Furthermore, it is clear from the description that the “load” is especially heavy when the
washing machine vibrates during use, see [0002]: “Because a washing machine may vibrate during
use, the piece of furniture comes to be under high load”. Claim features 1.7 and 1.8 should there-
fore be interpreted that the one (or more) plate-like means support the carrier in the sense of
transmitting a meaningful part of the vertical forces, including those during vibration.
8.1.16. Having so interpreted claim features 1.7 and 1.8, taking into account the figures and the
description3 , it is sufficiently clear to the Court that both in Respekta-Clara and the Laundreezy,
the back wall supports the carrier in the sense of transmitting a meaningful part of the vertical
forces, including those during vibration, in the sense of the patent. The photographs and videos
provided by Defendants show a gap between the carrier shelf and vertical plate. However, the
Court observes that this gap is minimal — barely sufficient to allow the insertion of a thin strip of
paper — and does not conclusively demonstrate the absence of contact in operational conditions.
At the oral hearing, Defendants acknowledged that their tests were conducted solely under static
conditions, using approximately 80 kg of water bottles to simulate the weight of a washing ma-
chine. No tests were performed while a washing machine was running or following a completed
spin cycle, during which dynamic/vibrating forces are significantly greater. Additionally, it cannot
be ruled out that the observed gap is a result of the way the cabinet is assembled, as the Applicants
argued. Applicants submitted videos in turn showing no gap exists. Even if a minor gap were pre-
sent under static load, the dynamic operation of a washing machine generates vertical forces suf-
ficient to eliminate such a gap. Under these conditions, the carrier shelf comes into firm contact
with the vertical plate, which then transmits vertical forces to the bottom wall of the cabinet,
thereby fulfilling the structural and functional requirements of the claimed features.
8.1.17. As correctly noted by Applicants, without such plate, the carrier supporting the weight of
the washing machine would bend or deform. The dowels and triangular support elements, while
contributing to the overall assembly, appear insufficient to bear the entirety of the load induced
by the machine, particularly during dynamic phases such as spin cycles. Their limited surface area
and mechanical engagement do not provide the same degree of load distribution or resistance to
vertical force as the vertical plate.
8.1.18. Defendants contested that Applicant’s tests were flawed, since the challenged cabinets had
not been assembled properly. In particular, triangular supports connecting the carrier to the ver-
tical walls had not been mounted and a foam mat, which comes with the cabinet, had not been
placed on top of the carrier, under the washing machine. While Defendants have a point, the Court
is not convinced that the triangular supports or the foam mat would prevent the (supportive) con-
tact between the carrier and the rear vertical plate. The Court further observes that Defendants
had the opportunity to rebut Applicants’ findings by conducting equivalent tests. Specifically, they
could have demonstrated that a gap persisted between the carrier and the rear vertical plate dur-
ing machine operation and following the completion of a spin cycle. Their failure to do so leaves
Applicants’ evidence uncontested in this important regard.
8.1.19. Additionally, as emphasized by Applicants, the vertical rear plate is constructed from the
same rather thick wood used throughout the cabinet’s vertical and horizontal walls. This choice of
material suggests a load-bearing function. If the rear plate were merely decorative or non-func-
tional, one would expect the use of a lighter, less expensive material — such as cardboard — or
the inclusion of a simple brace between the lateral walls. At the hearing, the Defendants’ CEO
stated that the choice of using the same material for the vertical plate was taken because it sim-
plifies the manufacturing process. The Court has no reason to believe this statement untrue. How-
ever, this reason behind the manufacturing choice does not take away that the vertical plate, so
3 Court of Appeal of 26 February 2024, UPC_CoA_335/2023 (NanoString v. 10x Genomics)
made, reflects the teachings of features 1.7 and 1.8 as it is suitable for transmitting vertical forces.
8.1.20. As a result, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that both challenged embodiments
make use of features 1.7 and 1.8.
Retaining element
8.1.21. With respect to group features 1.9, the challenged embodiments comprise an L-shaped
strip that is made of plastic and not of metal. Applicants submit that it is an equivalent embodi-
ment. Defendants insist that the plastic strip does not have the same characteristics as a metal
strip. In particular, a plastic strip is not as rigid as a metal strip, and Defendants demonstrated, at
the hearing, that the plastic strip can be twisted quite easily. Defendants further submitted that
the purpose of the L-shaped plastic strip is merely aesthetic: to cover the double plate of the carrier
and the foam mat. Referring to the test for equivalence adopted in Plant-e v. Arkyne4 , Defendants
also contested that a fair protection of the patentee would entail extending protection to a plastic
strip while still maintaining reasonable certainty for third parties.
8.1.22. Both parties referred to the test for equivalence adopted in Plant-e v. Arkyne. This test
entails that a variation is equivalent to an element specified in the claim if the following four ques-
tions are answered in the affirmative.
1) Technical equivalence: does the variation solve (essentially) the same problem that the pa-
tented invention solves and perform (essentially) the same function in this context?
2) Fair protection for the patentee: Is extending the protection of the claim to the equivalent pro-
portionate to a fair protection for the patentee?
3) Reasonable legal certainty for third parties: does the skilled person understand from the patent
that the scope of the invention is broader than what is claimed literally?
4) Is the allegedly infringing product novel and inventive over the prior art?
As a preliminary observation, the Court points out that a harmonised approach within the UPC is
certainly desirable5 , inspired on the doctrines of equivalence applied across UPC Contracting Mem-
ber States which all share a common foundation. In particular, the bottom line is that a finding of
equivalent patent infringement is excluded where there is no technical-functional equivalence —
meaning the substituted means do not perform essentially the same function to achieve essentially the same result. Or, in the positive, finding of equivalent patent infringement always requires
that the variant performs essentially the same function as the element recited in the claim, with
essentially the same result. The same applies to the assumption that protection cannot extend to
what is not new or inventive over the prior art. Similarly, legal certainty for third parties and a fair
protection for the patentee are mentioned in Art. 1 of the Protocol on the interpretation of Art. 69
EPC and usually return in the doctrines of equivalence in some way or form as developed in the
case law of the UPC Contracting Member States. In view of the above and in the absence of a
decision by the Court of Appeal and given that both parties referred to this test without proposing
or even debating an alternative, the Court sees no reason to deviate from the test it applied in
4 Local Division The Hague of 22 November 2024, UPC_CFI_239/2023 (Plant-e/Arkyne).
5 Local Division of Paris of 1 August 2025, UPC_CFI_363/2024 (N.J DIFFUSION SARL v. GISELA MAYER GmbH) and
Local Division of Mannheim of 6 June 2025, UPC_CFI_471/2023 (Dish/Aylo), Local Division Brussels 17 January 2025, UPC_CFI_376/2023 (X v OrthoApnea) Plant-e v. Arkyne. The Court will therefore now answer these questions.
1) Technical equivalence: does the variation solve (essentially) the same problem that the pa-
tented invention solves and perform (essentially) the same function in this context?
8.1.23. The Court answers this question in the affirmative.
8.1.24. Firstly, Applicants rightly contested Defendants’ torsion test: it is true that the L-shaped
plastic strip is of a softer material compared to a metal strip, but Defendants’ tests only show that
it offers less resistance to torsion. Offering little resistance to torsion is irrelevant to the function
of the L-shaped strip when mounted on the cabinet, i.e. of retaining a washing machine. When
mounted on the cabinet, pressure would apply to the vertical leg of the L-shape strip as screwed
on the carrier (with the horizontal part), and the L-shaped strip would not be subject to torsional
forces but to horizontal forces pushing against the vertical leg of the L-shaped strip. Once assem-
bled on the cabinet, the L-shaped strip will provide sufficient resistance to accomplish this purpose.
8.1.25. Secondly, the Court is not convinced by Defendants’ contention that their strip is purely for
aesthetic reasons. It contradicts their statement at page 33 of Objection, where Defendants admit
that “it is not disputed that the L-shaped strip of feature 1.9,1 on the one hand and the plastic strips
of Respekta Clara and Laundreezy are intended to solve the same problem (preventing falling of
the machine)”. Additionally, the Court notes that the vertical leg of the L-shaped retaining member
extends sufficiently above the surface of the carrier shelf. While the design may serve an aesthetic
purpose, its physical dimensions and position also fulfil the functional purposes of group of fea-
tures 1.9, namely, preventing the washing machine from sliding off the carrier during operation.
2) Fair protection for the patentee: is extending the protection of the claim to the equivalent pro-
portionate to a fair protection for the patentee?
8.1.26. The Court answers this question in the affirmative as well.
Applicants assert that extension is warranted as the material concerned does not have a specific
function. Defendants argue that conversely the material is particularly important. The Court finds
that as long as the strip in the Defendants’ cabinets ensures that the washing machine, even while
vibrating, is prevented from falling, indeed the material used for the retaining member is not
important. That the strip has an aesthetic purpose, even if true, does not affect this. Also, it would
be very easy for third parties to circumvent the patent by simply using a non-metal strip, while
taking advantage of all its teachings.
3) Reasonable legal certainty for third parties: does the skilled person understand from the patent
that the scope of the invention is broader than what is claimed literally?
8.1.27. The Court answers also this question in the affirmative.
8.1.28. Applicants argue that third parties will understand it is not important that the retaining
member is made of metal. What matters is that the used material is strong enough to prevent a
washing machine from falling off. Hence, this can also be achieved with (sturdy) plastic. Defend-
ants content that it must be clear what is protected. Here, the patent specification does not men-
tion the material of the strip just cursorily. Rather, the specification signals that the patent is pre-
cisely concerned with the materials of the elements, such as, for instance in [0014] where the
specification discusses in detail the advantages and disadvantages of metal in connection with a
possible (but not claimed) cover plate of the carrier:

… Providing the carrier with a (metal) cover plate protects the plate material of the carrier against
moisture, while the carrier constructed of plate material and metal is at the same time strong
enough to carry the load of the washing machine. The extra weight of the metal cover plate pro-
vides additional resistance against vibrations. The metal cover plate itself of course also has to be
protected against moisture, for instance by a coating or other surface treatment.
Additionally, in connection with this cover plate, the specification also discusses that specific plas-
tic materials could also be used:
A fibre reinforced plastic could also be used as material for the cover plate, instead of metal. Such
a plastic is likewise strong and stiff and well able to withstand moisture.
8.1.29. As this discussion is absent in connection with the L-shaped strip, the claimed metal mate-
rial is to be interpreted narrowly, still according to Defendants.
8.1.30. The Court finds that Applicants rightly contend, as such also not contested, that a skilled
person would in principle understand that a material different from metal would work to retain
the washing machine, provided the used material is strong enough to prevent a washing machine
from falling off. While for the cover plate, both metal and fibre reinforced plastic are contem-
plated, the description as such does not give a clue as to why the retaining member, despite this
understanding by the skilled person, can only be of metal. Absent such indications, a third party
can not genuinely believe that he/she can take advantage of the claimed invention, by simply using
a non-metal strip to circumvent literal infringement.
4) Is the allegedly infringing product novel and inventive over the prior art?
8.1.31. Defendants referred to their invalidity arguments in this respect. As they are dismissed, the
equivalent embodiment should be held novel and inventive.
Conclusion on infringement
8.1.32. In view of the above, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that claim 1 of the patent
is infringed by Defendants with their cabinets, the Laundreezy and the Respekta Clara. It need not
look at the other claims asserted.
Necessity (“objective urgency”)
9. Applicants argue that:
i) the products of the Defendants are in direct competition with the products of
Washtower. Each customer that purchases an infringing product, will be a lost
customer for Washtower. A household generally has no need for several washing
cabinets, and the products at issue – due to the infringing implementation of the
invention – have a long life and will not be soon replaced. Losses will typically not be
limited to the cabinet as such. The cabinet is regularly part of a series of furniture items.
The sale of Defendants’ cabinets therefore has a strong lock-in effect. Customers who
purchase a cabinet will tend to complement their furniture with matching products of
the infringer. Such customers will be lost for Washtower permanently.
ii) the resulting lost opportunities cannot be recovered in the course of the main
proceedings, especially regarding intangible losses such as brand equity, customer
loyalty and product reputation.
iii) the presence of multiple infringing parties is likely to lead to a complicated, and in any
event inaccurate, assessment of the damages and allocation of those damages to each
of the involved infringers. The infringers are likely to point to each-other, or potentially
to other – as yet unknown – parties, to frustrate the determination of which party is
liable for which number of damages. The result is that Washtower will be left with – to
a large extent – unrecoverable damages.
iv) the presence of Defendants’ products leads to price erosion.6 The infringing cabinets
are sold at a significant discount to the original products of Washtower. The observed
price undercutting by the Defendants undermines both Washtower’s pricing strategy
and its carefully established brand position. Also, it leads to lock-in effects for the
addressed audiences, which are almost impossible to be retrieved by Washtower with
ongoing infringements.
v) given that the technology in question is relatively simple, the risk of commoditization
is acute if not already existent. If the present infringers are allowed to continue their
infringing activity, this will encourage other parties to do the same. A swift and timely
action against the present companies will have a preventative effect and will avoid
further – unnecessary – litigation.
9.1.1. Defendants dispute Applicants’ allegation that “Each customer that purchases an infringing
product, will be a lost customer for Washtower.” They allege that the parties in fact supply largely
different market segments. First, the materials used for Applicants’ products differ from the
materials used for Defendants’ products. In addition, the overall design of the ‘‘wall cabinets’’ also
diverges noticeably from the appearance offered by Applicants as the aesthetic and design concept
of Defendants’ product lines contrasts clearly with that of Applicants’. Finally, Applicants’ products
are to a great part positioned in a different market segment than those of the Defendants, who
offer more affordable products. Defendants assert that the cheapest product of Applicants from
the category “complete wall cabinet” costs € 1,395 (currently discounted by 20% to € 1,116)
ranging to € 2,710 (currently discounted at € 2,168) for the most expensive one. In contrast,
Laundreezy models that are comparable in functionality (with regard to available storage and
space for washing machine and dryer) can be bought for € 799,50 (non-discounted price) and the
most expensive model available via laundreezy.de/en costs € 1,399.20. These price differences do
not serve to undercut Applicants’ pricing strategy as claimed by the Applicants (Application mn.
142), but are a consequence of the different market segments addressed by the parties. It is
obvious that the respective customer bases of Applicants and Defendants are likely to have
fundamentally different purchasing preferences and expectations. It is therefore very improbable
that an average consumer interested in the Applicants’ furniture would consider purchasing from
the Defendants, or vice versa, given the significant divergence in materials, price point and design.
Defendants therefore conclude there is no urgent need for relief and Applicants can be expected
to wait for a decision on the merits.
9.1.2. The Court is sufficiently convinced that a preliminary measure is necessary. The price
difference is not sufficiently large to underpin Defendants’ claim that the markets are so separate
that Applicants will not economically “feel” the continued sales by Defendants. To the contrary,
6 Court of Appeal, Order of 3 March 2025, UPC_CoA_523/2024 – Sumi Agro/Syngenta.

the price difference is such that it will undercut Applicants’ pricing, giving rise to a risk of
irreparable price erosion while proceedings on the merits take place. Equally, Applicants are right
to indicate (as such not contested by Defendants) that these cabinets are not purchased often by
a consumer. This means serious irretrievable loss of sales and market share are likely. Also,
Applicants have indicated that after their commercial relationship ended in which Defendants
manufactured the cabinets of Applicants exclusively for important segments of the market,
Applicants now have to build up their own market share in these segments, and Defendants’
cabinets irreparably harm that effort.
Temporal urgency
10. Contrary to Defendants’ position, the Court is sufficiently convinced that Applicants acted
without undue delay. Applicants acted swiftly after the grant of the patent was published on 2
April 2025 by ordering Defendants’ cabinets, delivery of which took several weeks, examine the
cabinets, send a cease-and-desist letter on 19 May 2025 and file the Statement of Claim on 28 May
2025. The fact that Applicants knew from 23 December 2024 onward that their patent would be
granted on receipt of the EPO’s “intention to grant” does not mean the delay was undue. Even if
Defendants’ assertion could be followed that as of 23 December 2024 Applicants could have
ordered the cabinets and examine them, in an effort to be ready to go once the mention of the
grant was published, 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. This Court does not deem such delay undue.
Balance of interests
11. The Court is sufficiently convinced that Applicants’ interests outweigh those of Defendants.
As indicated above, Applicants face irreparable harm in the form of price erosion and loss of
market (share). This is the more damaging as these washing machine cabinets are their only
product and they need to build up their own market share. While Defendants will face disruption
in the sales of their cabinets for washing machines, they have many more other furniture items
they sell, as undisputedly stated by Applicants. The impact on their business is therefore relatively
small, as is any impact on their reputation. In a similar vein, the potential damages should an
injunction be overturned are rather limited and will be further mitigated by imposing a security
deposit as more detailed below.
Outcome, relief and costs
12. The Court is sufficiently convinced that it is more likely than not that in proceedings on the
merits, the patent is found to be valid and infringed. Applicants filed their application for
preliminary relief without delay and the injunction sought, with penalties (up to a maximum), is
necessary and proportionate, given the circumstances. Defendants requested a security be
imposed of € 500,000 on the injunction. Since the Applicants are an SME, and given the relatively
minor impact on Defendants’ overall sales, the Court will order a security of € 25,000 to be
deposited at the Court.
12.1.1. As such a recall is also necessary to mitigate the effects of past infringement, however only
covering cabinets sold since the patent was in force (2 April 2025). Given the potentially more
disruptive nature of a recall, costs involved and damage to reputation, the Court on balance will
impose a security of € 75,000 by deposit for the enforcement of this order.

12.1.2. An order for information will be awarded in as far as necessary to stop further
infringement. In far as the information pertains to obtaining information for the calculation of
damages (such as prices and numbers of cabinets sold), such order is rejected for lack of
urgency/necessity.
12.1.3. The orders will be deemed directly enforceable according to R. 354 subject to R. 118.8 and
R. 352 RoP.
12.1.4. As the largely unsuccessful party, Defendants will bear the costs of these proceedings.
Regarding an interim cost award, parties – encouraged by the Court – came to an agreement on
the legal costs for the amount of € 56,000 (see App 34670/2025) to be awarded to the successful
party. So will be ordered, with the addition of court fees. Defendants did not object to joint liability.

ORDER
The court:
I. Injunction:
I.B Against Defendants 2 – 4
hands down an injunction against Defendants 2 – 4, effective as of the day of service on the de-
fendants, ordering them to cease and desist from any infringement of EP 3 522 755 B1, and in
particular the making, offering, placing on the market or using, or importing or storing the product
for those purposes, of the Laundreezy washing machine cabinets falling within the scope of EP 3
522 755 B1, or any other washing machine cabinet that implements the invention as protected by
EP 3 522 755 B1, in all UPC Contracting Member States;
I.C. Against Defendants:
hands down an injunction against Defendants 2 – 5, effective as of the day of service on the de-
fendant, ordering them to cease and desist any infringement of EP 3 522 755 B1, and in particular
the making, offering, placing on the market or using, or importing or storing the product for those
purposes, of the Respekta Clara washing machine cabinets falling within the scope of EP 3 522 755
B1, as described in this application, or any other washing machine cabinet that implements the
invention as protected by EP 3 522 755 B1, in all UPC Contracting Member States;

II. Information:
II.B. orders Defendants 2 – 4 to provide counsel for Washtower, within 4 weeks after service of
this order, with a written statement, substantiated with appropriate documentation for the wash-
ing machine cabinets according to rec. I.B in all UPC Contracting Member States of:
i. the origin and distribution channels of the washing machine cabinets (including the full
names and addresses of the legal entities that are involved);
ii. the identity of any party involved in the production or distribution of the washing ma-
chine cabinets according to rec. I.I.B (including the full names and addresses of the
legal entities that are involved).
II.C. orders Defendants to provide counsel for Washtower, within 4 weeks after service of this or-
der, with a written statement, substantiated with appropriate documentation for the washing ma-
chine cabinets according to rec. I.C, in all UPC Contracting Member States, of:
i. the origin and distribution channels (including the full names and addresses of the legal
entities that are involved);
ii. the identity of any party involved in the production or distribution of washing machine
cabinets according to rec. I.I.C., (including the full names and addresses of the legal
entities that are involved).

III. Recall
orders the Defendants to send, within 14 (fourteen) working days after service of this order, a
registered letter to all its professional customers, resellers and stockists in all UPC Contracting
Member States to whom it has supplied Laundreezy and/or Respekta Clara washing machine cab-
inets, in the language of the relevant party or in English, containing only the following text and no
caption:
“The UPC, Local Division The Hague has ruled in an order on provisional measures dated 11
September 2025 that it is more likely than not that by marketing Laundreezy and Respekta
Clara washing machine cabinets, we are infringing the patent rights of Washtower IP B.V. and
Washtower B.V. These products may not be offered, sold, delivered, used, or kept in stock by
[insert name of relevant Defendant(s)] for the time for which the provisional measures are in
place. The order of the UPC, Local Division The Hague is not final and can be appealed by [insert
name of relevant Defendant(s)].
We hereby request that you return all products of the following models Laundreezy and Re-
spekta Clara in your possession to us within fourteen days of the date of this letter. We will
reimburse you for the purchase price and all costs associated with returning the products to
us.”
all this under the obligation to provide simultaneous digital copies of all letters sent to Washtow-
er's lawyers;
IV. Penalty sums
orders that:
i. for each individual case of violation of the order under I. the respective Defendant must
pay to the Court a recurring penalty payment of up to EUR 10,000 (repeatedly if necessary);
and
ii. for each individual case of non-compliance with the orders under II.-III., the respective Defendant must pay to the Court a recurring penalty payment of up to EUR 10,000 per day, or
part of a day counting as an entire day, or up to EUR 50,000 per day, or part of a day counting
as an entire day, that the non-compliance continues.
These penalties will be determined by the Local Division in The Hague upon request by Applicants
up to a maximum of one million euros (Art. 62(1) UPCA; R. 354.3 RoP).
V. Cost award:
V.A. orders that Defendants 2-5 are jointly and severally liable to pay Washtower an in-
terim award on the legal costs as provided under Article 69 of the Unified Patent Court Agree-
ment jo Rule 211.1(d) of the Rules of Procedure, with the provision that any amount paid by
one Defendant shall discharge the other Defendants for that same amount; and
V.B. sets the amount of the interim costs award to the sum of the court fees EUR 6,600
plus the recoverable legal fees of Applicants to the amount of EUR 56,000, in total EUR 62,600.
VI. Direct enforceability
declares the above orders directly effective and enforceable, subject to R. 118.8 and R. 352 RoP,
by way of a security deposit for each of the orders under I to the amount of EUR 25,000 and the
order under III to the amount of EUR 75,000;
VII. Further requests
rejects any further requests made by Applicants.

INFORMATION ABOUT APPEAL
An appeal to this order may be brought in accordance with Art. 73 (2) (a) UPCA and R. 220.1 (c)
and 224.1(b) RoP within 15 calendar days of the notification of the order to the parties.

INFORMATION ON ENFORCEMENT (ART. 82 UPCA, ART. 37(2) STATUTE, R. 118.8, 158.2, 354, 355.4 ROP)
An authentic copy of the enforceable order will be issued by the Deputy Registrar upon request of
the enforcing party (R. 69 Rules governing the Registry of the Unified Patent Court).

ORDER DETAILS
Order no. ORD_36708/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: Not provided
UPC number: UPC_CFI_479/2025
Action type: Not provided
Related proceeding no. Application No.: 25599/2025
Application Type: Application for provisional measures (RoP206)