Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
327 cases · page 1 of 11
Showing 1–29Micron Technology, Inc. v.Ultron AG, Lexar Europe B.V., Apacer Technology B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the service of the Statement of Claim on Defendant 2, Lexar Europe B.V. The Court had attempted service by registered post in accordance with Rules 270-274 RoP and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, but the documents were not collected and were returned undelivered. The Claimant requested alternative service via a Dutch judicial officer (gerechtsdeurwaarder) under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, and the Court granted the request.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
Provisional measures
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock Germany GmbH a. o.
Infringement Action
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Local Division Düsseldorf's order granting provisional measures in favor of Align Technology, Inc. against the Angelalign Technology group. The court found that the 'Live Now' feature of the appellants' iOrtho orthodontic planning software infringed claims 1, 13, and 15 of Align's EP 4 346 690 patent, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The appeal was rejected and the appellants were ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd., v.Roborock Germany GmbH a. o.
This is a preliminary procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The court addressed the claimant Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd.'s request under Rule 190 RoP for production of source code extracts from the defendant (related to Roborock robot vacuum models), as well as a confidentiality request under Rule 262A RoP and a request for extension of time limits under Rule 9.3 RoP. The court held that the Rule 190 RoP request was premature because no specific contested facts existed at the time of submission, and that such requests are intended to produce evidence for substantiated, relevant, and contested facts rather than to investigate unknown facts.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH a. o.
Provisional measures
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of ANCA Europe GmbH in preparation for a main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. Following the execution of the inspection order at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart, the appointed expert prepared a detailed description of the findings. The respondent was given the opportunity to assert confidentiality interests but declined to do so, leading to the release of the unredacted detailed description to the applicant.
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH a. o.
Infringement Action
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH a. o.
This order concerns an application to intervene filed by KSR International Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Automotive Technical Advisory Service GmbH in patent infringement proceedings brought by Valeo Electrification against SEG Automotive entities and individual officers concerning EP 3 157 142. The Interveners had collaborated with Defendant 1 in 2018–2019 on developing an inverter for the accused 'BRM 2.8' 48V e-machines and sought to intervene in support of the Defendants to avoid potential future recourse claims. The Düsseldorf Local Division admitted the Interveners, finding they had a direct and present legal interest, and aligned their deadline for filing a statement in intervention with the Defendants' deadline for filing their statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation, set at 16 July 2026.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. a. o.
Infringement Action
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. a. o.
Evac Oy, a Finnish company, brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf against Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. (China), VD Solutions GmbH (Germany), and Mr. Yong Cao concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1. The decision addresses key procedural and substantive issues including limitation periods under Article 72 UPCA, the distinction between financial compensation claims (subject to a five-year limitation period) and injunctive relief (not subject to limitation), as well as questions of consent, forfeiture, de facto business succession, and exhaustion of rights. An oral hearing was held on May 19, 2026, and the judgment was rendered on June 22, 2026.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a. o.
Infringement Action
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a. o.
The appellants (Siemens entities) sought to withdraw their application for suspensive effect in appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-94/2026) relating to a counterclaim for revocation, arguing the application had been filed accidentally. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal under R. 265 RoP and granted the appellants' auxiliary request for reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 1,300), rejecting their main request for full reimbursement.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc. a. o.
Infringement Action
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc. a. o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-08) under reference UPC_0C3E23552C, Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS appeared in dispute with Amgen Inc. a. o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
Infringement Action
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
Infringement Action
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
Infringement Action
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-01) under reference UPC_D574D5017B, Boa Technology Inc. appeared in dispute with Shinkyung Inc. et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
Infringement Action
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
This case concerned European patent EP 3 651 429 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Both the claimant (Avago Technologies) and the defendants (Renault entities) withdrew their respective infringement action and counterclaim for revocation on 12 May 2026, following an out-of-court settlement. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each party, applying the amended Rule 370.9 RoP that took effect on 1 January 2026, rather than the 60% rate requested.
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
Infringement Action
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH et al.
Infringement Action
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
This order concerns the protection of confidential information in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP 1 748 830 B1. The plaintiff Brita SE had previously obtained a decision on April 16, 2026, finding indirect infringement by the defendant Wessper Sp. z o.o.'s filter cartridges and ordering the defendant to provide structured information about its infringing products. The present order, issued by Presiding Judge Thomas as Rapporteur, addresses procedural measures under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure to safeguard confidential information during the disclosure process.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH et al.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-27) under reference UPC_44EB647500, Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. appeared in dispute with Cybex GmbH et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU a. o.
Application for provisional measures
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU a. o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures, including a preliminary injunction, against four entities in the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 295 806 B1, which relates to methods of designing orthodontic appliances (clear aligners). The Local Division Düsseldorf dismissed the application, finding that Align Technology failed to sufficiently establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the relevant features of claim 1 (and corresponding claim 14) were realized in a single aligner of the defendants' challenged 'A7 Premolar Extraction Solution.' The Applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, with the value of the case set at EUR 1,600,000.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a. o.
Application RoP262A
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH a. o.
Application for provisional measures
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.