Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
250 cases · page 1 of 9
Showing 1–29F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l.
In a case involving F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the claimants to withdraw their infringement action concerning EP 1 962 668. This withdrawal was based on an out-of-court settlement reached between the parties, which stipulated that each party would bear its own costs. The court confirmed the termination of proceedings and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees for Roche.
Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
In this UPC case, Versah LLC initiated an infringement lawsuit against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning EP 2 919 672 B1. However, before the written proceedings concluded, the claimant filed a motion to withdraw the claim. Both parties agreed to this withdrawal and subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement. The court granted the request for withdrawal and declared the case closed, while also ordering the refund of 60% of the initial court fees.
Topsoe A/S v.HyGear B.V.
In this procedural matter, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by HyGear B.V. to change the language of proceedings from German to English for EP3802413. The court applied the fairness criteria under Art. 49(5) UPCA, considering factors like the predominant language in the hydrogen technology field and the practical disadvantages faced by non-German speaking parties. Ultimately, the request was granted, emphasizing that efficient communication is crucial in accelerated UPC proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH
This Düsseldorf Local Division decision addresses a complex FRAND dispute involving Dolby and Beko concerning smart TV codecs. The court provided key guidance on establishing a dominant position in the context of standard-essential patents, linking it to consumer expectations for universal compatibility. Crucially, the ruling reinforced the strict procedural requirements of the Huawei v. ZTE negotiation framework, clarifying that failure by the alleged infringer to make an initial licensing offer ends the FRAND assessment immediately.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This UPC decision, delivered by the Düsseldorf Local Chamber, addressed a complex infringement case concerning milk frothing technology. While the claimant sought an injunction and damages for patent infringement (EP 3 398 487 B1), the court ultimately dismissed the main claim. Crucially, the judgment provided important guidance on remedies, specifically clarifying that advertising materials are exempt from mandatory destruction under Art. 64(2)(e) UPC Agreement because they do not constitute 'relevant materials' used in production.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision addressed an infringement suit brought by TRUMPF against IPG regarding a patent covering laser beam generation using multi-clad fibers. Although the court ultimately dismissed the main infringement claim, it issued a significant finding that the defendant is liable for further damages resulting from the alleged infringing activities. The counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was also rejected, leaving the patent valid but with complex financial implications.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request by Hologic, Inc. to submit further written arguments in an ongoing UPC case against Siemens Healthineers AG. The Court ultimately rejected this request, citing concerns over unnecessary delay and insufficient justification provided by the Claimant. This decision reinforces the court's strict management of proceedings under the Rules of Procedure (RoP), balancing the right to be heard against procedural efficiency.
beMatrix NV. v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a rectification of an earlier provisional measures order in the dispute between beMatrix NV. and Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. The original application sought preliminary injunctions against alleged infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1, which covers display modules for temporary exhibition stands. The Court ultimately corrected a clerical error in its prior ruling, ensuring that the Defendant was properly ordered to cease and desist from infringing the patent. This highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting administrative or drafting errors.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA initiated proceedings against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. concerning the validity or infringement of EP 3 001 984 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order setting the date for oral hearings on April 22, 2026. This decision highlights the court's focus on ensuring technical expertise by requesting an additional qualified judge in the medical technology field (A61F/A61B).
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In this UPC decision, the Court of First Instance addressed a request by Wizart Inc. to impose security for legal costs on Leap Tools Inc., citing the latter's Canadian base and estimated revenue. The court ultimately rejected the motion, emphasizing that simply being non-EU or having moderate revenue is not enough to establish an undue burden of enforcement. Practitioners should note that applicants seeking security must provide detailed evidence regarding foreign law recognition and enforceability, rather than relying on general nationality arguments.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG; Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
In a complex dispute involving EP 3 805 415, the UPC Local Court of Düsseldorf issued an interim procedural order concerning the protection of confidential information. The defendants sought to classify various internal reports and supplier data as trade secrets, while the claimant objected to this classification. This ruling establishes strict rules for handling sensitive documents during litigation, including access limitations, confidentiality obligations, and potential penalties for breaches.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH
In a case involving ETRI against Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and associated defendants, the UPC Court of First Instance permitted the withdrawal of the infringement action. This decision followed a settlement reached between the parties, leading to the closure of the proceedings. While all parties agreed to bear their own costs, the court specifically ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the initial court fees to ETRI.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
Align Technology sought provisional measures against the Angelalign group regarding alleged infringement of its clear aligner orthodontic patent (EP 4 346 690 B1). The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a complex order, granting a preliminary injunction and imposing significant penalty payments on several defendants. While the court established the validity concerns were not automatically overcome by the applicant's claims, it found grounds for provisional relief against specific infringing parties. This decision highlights the delicate balance courts must strike when balancing patent holder rights with defendant challenges during urgent interim proceedings in the UPC.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC allowed Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited to withdraw its patent infringement lawsuit against Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties, indicating that an out-of-court settlement had been reached. This case highlights how procedural flexibility in the UPC allows for the termination of litigation when parties reach a consensual resolution.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH a. o.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division allowed Maxeon Solar to withdraw its infringement action against Aiko Energy and related parties, while simultaneously allowing the Defendants to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. Although the case was settled by mutual agreement, the Court firmly rejected all requests for reimbursement of court fees from both sides. This ruling underscores that procedural agreements must align with strict UPC rules regarding timing and necessity, even in cases of amicable settlement.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this UPC decision, the Court addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 686 683 B1, which covers developer replenishing systems. While the core claims were dismissed, the ruling provided significant guidance on procedural fairness. The court held that defendants who use their websites to mislead the public about patent status may be compelled by Article 80 UPCA to publish the operative parts of the judgment themselves.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the critical issue of service of process against a defendant based in China. Despite formal attempts via Chinese authorities failing, and subsequent email contact being ignored, the Court invoked the principle of effective judicial protection. It ruled that publishing the provisional measures order on the UPC website constituted valid good service, allowing the proceedings to continue without further delay.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of service of process in a UPC provisional measures case involving parties across different jurisdictions, specifically China. The Court found that traditional methods of serving Defendant 2 were ineffective and unduly delayed. By invoking the principle of effective judicial protection, the Düsseldorf Local Division declared that publishing the preliminary injunction on the UPC website constituted valid good service. This ruling provides significant guidance for practitioners dealing with cross-border litigation where formal service is impractical.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a complex cost determination dispute arising from an infringement case involving EP 2 697 391 B1. The core issue was whether the cost ceilings applicable to the initial Provisional Measures proceedings and the subsequent main infringement action should be combined or treated separately. The Court firmly rejected the Claimant's attempt to create a unified ceiling, reinforcing the principle that separate proceedings maintain distinct financial caps. This ruling is highly significant for patent practitioners as it clarifies the boundaries of cost recovery when litigation spans multiple UPC stages (PI vs. Merits). It mandates meticulous tracking and separation of costs to ensure compliance with individual proceeding ceilings.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA concerning the diagnostic instrument and method covered by EP 3 756 767 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. This decision highlights the procedural implications of bifurcated UPC cases, confirming that a finding of non-infringement renders the validity question moot for the immediate action. It also sets clear parameters regarding cost allocation in unsuccessful litigation.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 653 275 B8, the court addressed a request for an additional expert report following an initial inspection and evidence preservation order. The Local Division of Düsseldorf denied the supplementary expert opinion, finding that the existing findings were sufficient and that the procedure did not necessitate further technical clarification at this stage. However, the court granted access to the unredacted version of the expert's detailed description, ensuring transparency for the claimant.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
This UPC decision involved a dual action: an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. Despite the complexity of the technology—which relates to advanced location estimation using positioning-assisting signals—both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim were ultimately dismissed by the Düsseldorf Local Division. The ruling provided important procedural guidance, emphasizing that registration status is prioritized in certain UPC proceedings, while also clarifying the requirements for establishing direct infringement.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
In a case involving ETRI against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and several related entities, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf permitted the withdrawal of an infringement action concerning EP 3258692. The parties reached a settlement agreement before the written procedure concluded. Consequently, the court closed the proceedings and ordered the Claimant to receive a partial reimbursement of the Court fees.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This procedural order in the UPC case Align Technology v. Angelalign Technology concerns a request for leave to appeal an earlier decision that restricted the Defendants' ability to submit late-filed non-infringement arguments and further written pleadings during provisional measures proceedings. The Court of First Instance ultimately denied this request, asserting its discretion under the Rules of Procedure (RoP) in managing the case efficiently. This ruling underscores the court's authority to strictly manage procedural timelines, even when those orders significantly impact the substantive defense.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request from Canon Kabushiki Kaisha for simultaneous Japanese interpretation during oral proceedings. The Court ruled that allowing the Claimant to use an interpreter was appropriate to ensure equality of arms, given that some corporate representatives were not proficient in English. However, the Court denied the request for court-organized interpretation and held that the costs would not become part of the proceedings, emphasizing that such arrangements are generally not provided unless necessary or if the language is official.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA
In a procedural decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal of an infringement claim brought by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against Vantiva SA and its affiliates. Concurrently, the counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3186937 was also withdrawn. The court formally terminated both proceedings based on the parties' mutual agreement. This case highlights how procedural agreements between litigants can lead to the early conclusion of complex UPC actions.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA
In a procedural ruling before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC, Atlas Global Technologies GmbH withdrew its infringement claim against Vantiva SA and its affiliates. Simultaneously, the defendants successfully withdrew their counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent EP 3 353 901. The court accepted both withdrawals, declaring the proceedings terminated. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can lead to a swift conclusion in complex UPC litigation, focusing on mutual consent rather than substantive merits.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
This Düsseldorf Local Division order addresses procedural issues arising from an application to preserve evidence in a medical device patent case. The court emphasized that defendants must actively utilize provided CMS access codes and appoint representatives promptly if they wish to comment on confidentiality interests related to expert reports. Since the respondent failed to log into the CMS, the court proceeded with disclosing the unredacted expert description to the applicant while simultaneously revoking the evidence preservation measures unless the main infringement proceedings were quickly initiated.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures and a preliminary injunction against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The case, filed under R. 206 RoP, targeted counterfeit printer cartridges (types 924 and 937) sold by both German and Chinese defendants. Crucially, the court also imposed significant penalty payments on the Chinese defendant to enforce compliance with the provisional measures, demonstrating a strong enforcement stance in UPC proceedings.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
In this UPC decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for an ex-parte order concerning the inspection and preservation of evidence related to robot localization technology. The court ultimately revoked the existing provisional measure because the applicant's submission was deemed incomplete and misleading regarding the core facts. This ruling serves as a strong warning to applicants seeking urgent interim relief that procedural integrity is paramount, especially when relying on ex-parte proceedings.
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.