Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
292 cases · page 2 of 10
Showing 31–59Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning European Patent EP 2 919 672 B1. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit and requested a partial refund of court fees. The defendant consented to both the withdrawal and the fee refund, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
HyGear B.V., SYPOX GmbH - Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH - Technical University of Munich v.Topsoe A/S
This order concerns HyGear B.V.'s application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a case involving European patent EP3802413 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming. The main proceedings were initiated by Topsoe A/S against HyGear B.V., SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH, and the Technical University of Munich. The President of the Court of First Instance was asked to decide on the language change request pursuant to Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure, with most parties consenting to the change except the Technical University of Munich.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a.o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 605 534, with Dolby International AB as the plaintiff and Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. as defendants, relating to smart TV technology and standard-essential audio/video codecs. The dispute centers on FRAND licensing obligations and whether Dolby holds a dominant position on the relevant market. The Düsseldorf Local Division held that a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU may arise where smart TVs cannot be offered without a license to the patent in suit, given consumer expectations of codec compatibility. The court further ruled that under the Huawei v. ZTE negotiation framework, if the alleged infringer fails to express willingness to take a license after being notified of infringement, the examination terminates without needing to assess whether the patent holder's offer is FRAND.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 398 487 B1, which relates to a method and device for producing milk foam with adjustable temperature. The plaintiff, CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG, brought the infringement claim against ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH. The key legal ruling addressed the scope of destruction remedies under Article 64(2)(e) UPCA, holding that advertising materials are exempt from destruction because they are not covered by the statutory wording.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1, titled 'Method and arrangement for generating a laser beam with different beam profile characteristics.' TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE, the sole proprietor of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent, sued IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG for patent infringement. The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf heard oral arguments on January 22, 2026 and rendered its decision on March 16, 2026.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a.o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 352 431 B1, in which the court rejected Hologic's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional brief formal comments on the Defendants' submissions dated September 24, 2025. The court held that the request was vague as Hologic failed to specify any new facts, and that Hologic's right to be heard was not unduly restricted since it retained the right to oppose the submissions and would have ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc
This is a provisional procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The order summons the represented parties to an oral hearing scheduled for April 22, 2026, sets non-extendable deadlines for the applicant to reply to the respondents' objection and for the respondents to file a rejoinder, and requests the President of the Court of First Instance to assign an additional technically qualified judge with expertise in the relevant technical field (classification A61F/A61B).
beMatrix NV v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
beMatrix NV, the proprietor of European Patent No. 3 757 442 B1 concerning a display module for temporary exhibition stands, applied for provisional measures against Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division, alleging that Yaham's "Sytaq RA" modular LED display system infringed the patent. After Yaham's CEO declined to cooperate when approached at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, the court granted the preliminary injunction ex parte. The court subsequently issued a rectification order on the same day to correct a clerical error that had mistakenly named the Applicant instead of the Defendant in the operative paragraph.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendant's request for security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in proceedings concerning EP 3 859 566. The Defendant, Wizart Inc., sought at least EUR 300,000 in security, arguing that the Claimant, Leap Tools Inc., is a Canadian company with no UPC presence and limited annual revenue. The Court held that the Defendant failed to meet its burden of substantiation, as it neither addressed applicable Canadian law regarding enforcement of foreign judgments nor demonstrated that the Claimant's financial position raised legitimate concerns about recoverability of costs.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG a. O.
This provisional procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 805 415 and was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in consolidated proceedings. The defendants (Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH) filed a request to designate certain information as trade secrets or confidential information under Article 58 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. The court addressed the defendants' requests regarding the protection of confidential information and the restriction of access to specific individuals.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH a. o.
The claimant, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 258 692 B1 against multiple Hisense and Gorenje entities. Following a settlement, the claimant applied to withdraw the action, with all parties consenting and agreeing to bear their own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at €2,500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€14,400) to the claimant.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The Local Division Düsseldorf granted the application in part, issuing a preliminary injunction against five of the six defendants regarding the 'iOrtho' software (release 5.2 with 'Live Now' function) and aligners manufactured accordingly, but rejected the application against the European holding company defendant. The defendants were ordered to pay a penalty of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product and EUR 400,000 in provisional cost reimbursement.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH a. o.
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, involving a patent infringement action by Maxeon Solar against multiple defendants and counterclaims for revocation. Following settlement negotiations, the claimant withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaims for revocation. The court allowed the withdrawals, released the security for costs, but dismissed applications by both the claimant and defendants for partial reimbursement of court fees.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH. a. o.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha sued Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. for infringement of European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, which relates to a developer replenishing container and system. The Düsseldorf Local Division found that the defendants' toner bottles infringed the patent, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, damages, and publication of the operative part of the decision on the defendants' websites.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
The plaintiff, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, filed a patent infringement action against Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG concerning European Patent EP 1 954 091 B1 on November 19, 2025. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff declared withdrawal of the action, and the defendant consented. Both parties jointly indicated that no cost decision was necessary due to an out-of-court settlement. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and set the dispute value at EUR 1,000,000.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the service of a preliminary injunction order dated 19 December 2025 on Defendant 2, Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese-based company. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, along with notification via email to Defendant 2's Amazon seller profile address, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, with service deemed effective as of 2 February 2026.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.1.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., 2. Andreas Rentmeister e.K.;
This procedural order concerns the service of a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. The Applicant, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., had sought provisional measures against the Defendants, but service on the China-based Defendant 1. proved impossible through the Chinese Central Authority, which certified that no such company existed at the address provided. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, with the names of the parties and file number, constitutes good service on Defendant 1. pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This is a cost decision by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1, following infringement proceedings in which the court found partial infringement of claim 14 and ordered costs to be borne 30% by the Claimant and 70% by the Defendant. The Claimant sought reimbursement of costs from both the preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings and the main proceedings, arguing that the cost ceilings should be combined. The court held that PI proceedings and main proceedings have separate cost ceilings, that costs cannot be shifted between the two, and that in cases of partial success, the ceiling must be reduced proportionally to the success rate.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA. a. o.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA and five of its European subsidiaries concerning European patent EP 3 756 767 B1, which relates to instruments and methods for detecting biological analytes. The Düsseldorf Local Division bifurcated the case, referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, which amended the patent to maintain only two claims. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding no direct or indirect infringement of the amended claims by the challenged VIDAS 3 instrument and related reagent strips and Solid Phase Receptacles, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH a. o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 and involves a dispute between Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. (applicant) and Inverquark Deutschland GmbH and Inverquark GmbH (respondents). The applicant had previously obtained an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order executed at the respondents' trade fair stand at 'Aquanale Köln' on October 30, 2025. After initially indicating they would seek review of that order, the respondents withdrew that intention and instead requested the appointment of a supplementary expert opinion and the release of the detailed description prepared by the court-appointed expert.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, a patent relating to methods for determining location estimates using positioning engines and signalling devices. The court held that the patent was valid but not infringed by Google's products, as the alleged infringing products did not embody every claimed component required for direct infringement. Costs were ordered against the Claimant for the infringement action, with a split for the counterclaim costs.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd a.o.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3258692 was filed by Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities. The claimant subsequently applied to withdraw the action against all defendants before the closure of the written procedure. The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning an application for provisional measures based on European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The Defendants sought leave to appeal a prior procedural order of 16 December 2025, which had directed the Court to disregard non-infringement arguments submitted in the Defendants' Rejoinder. The Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the order was a valid exercise of its procedural discretion under Rules 9 and 209.1(a) RoP and was closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese claimant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division, requested simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing. The Defendants did not object to Canon engaging an interpreter at its own expense but opposed court-organised interpretation and associated costs. The court applied a two-stage test and held that while allowing simultaneous interpretation was appropriate, the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, as Japanese is neither an official language of a Contracting Member State nor of the Local Division.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA a. o.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 353 901, in which Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed a patent infringement action against three Vantiva entities, and the Vantiva defendants filed a nullity counterclaim against Atlas Global Technologies GmbH and Atlas Global Technologies LLC. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the main action and the defendants withdrew the counterclaim, with both sides consenting to the respective withdrawals. The parties agreed on cost allocation and requested the court to formally terminate the proceedings and order a partial refund of court fees.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 593 025 B1, which was executed at the Defendant's booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf. After the expert delivered its detailed description, the Defendant had not logged into the CMS despite having received an access code, preventing it from commenting on confidentiality interests. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the unredacted detailed description to the Applicant, lifting the confidentiality order, as the Defendant bore the responsibility to appoint a UPC representative to access the CMS.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for preservation of evidence and inspection under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 RoP regarding European patent EP 2 593 025 B1. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the Applicant because the Defendant, despite receiving a CMS access code at the time of service on 18 November 2025, never logged into the CMS through a UPC representative, thereby forfeiting its opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This case concerns an application by Roborock (HK) Limited for review of an ex-parte inspection and evidence preservation order concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1, owned by Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber found that Ecovacs's presentation of facts for the ex-parte order was incomplete and potentially misleading, thereby violating Rule 192.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The court held that such a breach renders the order unlawful in its entirety, as ex-parte orders depend entirely on the applicant's truthful and complete submissions.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. a. o.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. sought provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, a patent relating to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants, with Defendant 1 having reached a settlement and not defending against most motions, and Defendant 2 having failed to file any objection despite being served through the Chinese Central Authority.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, in which Canon Kabushiki Kaisha is the Claimant and four entities (three Katun companies and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.) are the Defendants. The order addresses several interim procedural matters, including requests for reimbursement of damages and interim damages, a request for leave to amend the claim under Rule 263 RoP, a request to submit a further pleading under Rule 36 RoP, the contested issue of service on Defendant 3 (Katun Corporation), and the value of dispute. The Defendants declared willingness to drop their contestation of service on Defendant 3 in order to reach an amicable solution, and the Claimant acknowledged that service was no longer contested.
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.