On 26 May 2026, the Milan Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued three final judgments in the patent infringement dispute concerning motorcycle tyres, brought by Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Jinlun Group Co., Ltd. The court found that the motorcycle tyres in question, which the two Chinese companies had displayed and promoted at European trade fairs, fully fell within the scope of protection of two of Pirelli’s European patents, thereby constituting patent infringement. The court ordered the companies to bear the liability for injunctions across all UPC member states, public notification of the judgment, and compensation for damages.
Sichuan Yuanxing Case (UPC CFI No. 770/2024, No. 556/2025)
The patent at issue in this case is EP 3 519 207 B1 (a motorcycle tyre combining on-road and off-road performance), corresponding to Pirelli’s commercial product, the Scorpion Rally STR. The EICMA International Motorcycle and Accessories Exhibition was held in Rho, Milan, from 5 to 10 November 2024. Pirelli contended that the HA-51R and HA-51F motorcycle tyres exhibited by Yuanxing under the “Helios” brand fell within the scope of protection of claim 1 of its EP 3 519 207 B1 patent, and consequently applied to the Milan Division of the UPC on 31 October 2024 for a pre-exhibition preservation order. The court issued a seizure order on 5 November 2024, which was executed at Farstar’s exhibition stand the following day, resulting in the seizure of two tyre samples and a number of promotional brochures.
In response, Farstar lodged a procedural objection whilst simultaneously filing a counterclaim seeking the invalidation of the patent in question on the grounds of insufficient disclosure in the specification and lack of inventive step.
On procedural grounds, Yuanxing argued that, at the time of the seizure order’s execution, the judicial officer had failed to serve the statement of claim and its annexes in accordance with the law, thereby preventing it from applying for a review within the prescribed time limit and infringing upon its right to a defence. In a ruling issued on 14 July 2025, the court dismissed this application. The court noted that, pursuant to Article 138 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, if the addressee expressly refuses to accept the documents, the judicial officer’s recording of this refusal in the service record is deemed to constitute successful personal service. The service record in this case shows that personnel present at EICMA Stand I64, Hall 10 explicitly refused to accept the documents, and personnel from Yuanxing were also among those who refused to accept them. Service was lawfully completed on 6 November 2024; the failure to obtain subsequent materials was due to Yuanxing’s own refusal to accept them and does not constitute a defect in service.
Regarding the validity of the patent and the determination of infringement, the dispute between the parties centred on the method of measuring the curvature ratio (f/C), the basis for calculating the solid-to-void ratio, the determination of the direction of extension of the transverse grooves, and whether certain pattern blocks constituted independent pattern blocks within the meaning of the claims. The court rejected each of Yuanxing’s defences in turn and, citing the ‘principle of proximity of evidence’, noted that the measurement data in question was clearly within the direct control of Yuanxing as the manufacturer. Its refusal to provide alternative data resulted in a shift in the burden of proof. The court ultimately determined that the HA-51R and HA-51F fell entirely within the scope of protection of claim 1 of EP 3 519 207 B1, constituting literal infringement.
Consequently, the Court ordered Yuanxing to cease the marketing and sale of the products in question within the member states of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and required it to publish a notice of the judgment on the homepage of its website for two consecutive months in the prescribed format; in the event of a breach of the injunction, a fine of €400 per infringing product is to be paid, and in the event of failure to fulfil the publication obligation on time, a daily penalty of €5,000 is to be imposed, with all relevant sums payable to the UPC. However, given that Yuanxing failed to demonstrate that it had actually sold or distributed the products in Europe, the Court, applying the principle of proportionality, did not uphold Pirelli’s request for the recall, withdrawal from the market and destruction of the products, and also dismissed its application for advance payment of damages under Rule 119 of the Rules of Procedure.
Tianjin Jinlun Case (UPC CFI No. 771/2024)
Pirelli also holds patent EP 2 519 412 B1, which relates to a motorcycle tyre and tyre pair designed to increase the contact patch during straight-line driving through a specific tread structure. This corresponds to Pirelli’s “Metzeler” brand commercial products: ROADTEC? 02, SPORTEC? M5 INTERACT? and ROADTEC? Z8 INTERACT?. Pirelli discovered that two motorcycle tyres promoted by Golden Wheel Group at the EICMA exhibition and on its website—the RADIAL TYRE HIGH SPEED K902 (hereinafter “K902”) and the Motorcycle Radial Tyre-Slick Racing Grade W (hereinafter “GRADE W”)—fell within the scope of protection of EP 2 519 412 B1, and consequently applied for pre-exhibition preservation of evidence and seizure. The court issued a seizure order on 5 November 2024, which was executed at Jinlun’s exhibition stand the following day, resulting in the seizure of the promotional brochures.
In this case, having been duly served with the documents in accordance with the law, Jinlun Group failed to submit a statement of defence within the prescribed time limit and did not appoint a representative to appear in court, thereby constituting a default. The court reviewed and confirmed in accordance with Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) that: service had been effected in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters on 2 July 2025 via the platform of the Centre for International Legal Cooperation under the Ministry of Justice of China, and proof of service had been obtained; the defendant had failed to file a defence within the prescribed time limit; and the facts stated by the plaintiff were sufficiently substantiated to support the relief sought.
Regarding the finding of infringement, the Court conducted a feature-by-feature comparison based on website promotional materials and brochures seized at trade fairs, and found that the K902 and GRADE W products fell entirely within the scope of protection of independent claims 1 and 3 of EP 2 519 412 B1, constituting literal infringement; furthermore, the Court invoked Article 55(2) of the UPC Agreement to presume that the defendant had implemented the method patent in question.
Accordingly, the court ordered Jinlun Group to cease the marketing and sale of the products in question within the UPC member states where the EP 2 519 412 B1 patent is valid, and required it to publish a notice of the judgment on its website homepage for two consecutive months; the standard for liquidated damages was consistent with that in the Yuanxing case. At the same time, due to the lack of evidence that the defendant had actually sold the relevant products in Europe, the court, applying the principle of proportionality, similarly did not uphold Pirelli’s claims for product withdrawal from the market, destruction and advance payment of damages.
This series of cases represents a relatively typical set of intellectual property enforcement cases involving Chinese manufacturers at trade fairs since the establishment of the UPC. The cases demonstrate that under the UPC system, even if the relevant products have not yet formally entered the European market, merely displaying, advertising or promoting them at European trade fairs may be deemed to fall within the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court, thereby triggering cross-member-state injunctions and subsequent enforcement measures.
Full text of the judgment attached
