Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
327 cases · page 2 of 11
Showing 31–59Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc. a. o.
Application for provisional measures
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, v.Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (interim injunction) filed by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA against Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH and MedEnvoy Global BV regarding European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf addressed the requirements of urgency and necessity for interim relief, particularly focusing on the applicant's burden to demonstrate timely knowledge of the allegedly infringing embodiment and the obligation to promptly investigate the potential infringement. The decision was rendered following an oral hearing on April 22, 2026, by a panel including the presiding judge Dr. Thom.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, v.BrainPortfolio Inc. a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures brought by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1, against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. for alleged patent infringement. The order, issued by the 2nd Panel of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, addresses the legal principles regarding urgency and the applicant's duty to act without undue delay in seeking interim relief. The court established guidelines on the burden of proof concerning the applicant's knowledge or constructive knowledge of the allegedly infringing embodiment and the obligation to promptly investigate the infringement.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, filed an application on May 4, 2026, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of ANCA Europe GmbH in Stuttgart, in advance of a planned main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued the order on May 6, 2026, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure. The patent had previously been the subject of two other inspection proceedings and a pending counterclaim for revocation in a separate main action.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
Generic Order
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
Generic Order
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1, held by Topsoe A/S, in proceedings involving inspection and preservation of evidence against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The applicant challenged the impartiality of an appointed expert, seeking to have the expert disqualified on grounds of bias. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf examined whether circumstances existed that would give a knowledgeable and reasonable observer justified doubts about the expert's impartiality or independence. The court ruled that the content of an expert report alone is insufficient to cast doubt on impartiality, and that a flawed report or lack of expertise does not indicate bias unless additional circumstances suggest a lack of objectivity.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 and involves an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for the revocation of an inspection and evidence preservation order previously issued ex parte by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on September 22, 2025. The original order had permitted OTEC to inspect a 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell' at the respondent's stand at the EMO Messe Hannover 2025 trade fair, including operating the device, attaching a smartphone to measure rotation speed, and configuring programs. The present order, issued on May 4, 2026, addresses the respondent's request to set aside that earlier inspection order under Article 60(8) of the relevant agreement and Rules 198.1 and 199.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
Infringement Action
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
Infringement Action
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
This order concerns an application by the plaintiff for partial reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 7,500) under the revised Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, rejecting the plaintiff's request for 60% reimbursement.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Infringement Action
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG a.o.
Counterclaim for revocation
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Counterclaim for revocation
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., v.Zapp AG a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 805 415. The plaintiff Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. raised an objection of delay under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, combined with a precautionary application for permission to exchange further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP. The plaintiff argued that the defendants Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH had introduced entirely new and extensive factual submissions in their reply (Duplik) to the amendment request in the nullity proceedings dated April 13, 2026, particularly regarding the main request for nullity rather than the auxiliary requests.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o.
Infringement Action
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Infringement Action
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG u.a.
Application for provisional measures
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-27) under reference UPC_BD0C7D705A, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) appeared in dispute with Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG u.a.
fiskaly GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 285 308 B8 titled 'SECURELY REGISTERING A SEQUENCE OF TRANSACTIONS,' filed an application on April 20, 2026 seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the German premises of SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG. No main infringement action had yet been filed, but fiskaly indicated its intention to bring such an action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf following the requested inspection. The order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on April 27, 2026, under Article 60 of the European Patent Convention Agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.
QUANTIFICARE S.A.. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH a. o.
Counterclaim for revocation
QUANTIFICARE S.A.. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1, brought by Quantificare S.A. against five Canfield Scientific entities and ESTHETEC SAS before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The patent, which relates to a French-language European patent granted in 2018, is in force in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The key legal issue addressed is whether establishing an infringing act in one Contracting Member State is sufficient to issue an order covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, including where the patent proprietor carves out claims for procedural reasons.
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
Infringement Action
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 1 748 830 B1, with Brita SE as plaintiff and Wessper Sp. z o.o. as defendant. The decision addressed issues of indirect patent infringement and patent exhaustion in relation to a two-component product and wear parts. The court established that for indirect infringement, the existence of the other component is not required for the objective elements, and that for exhaustion analysis, the technical teaching of combined claims (main claim plus sub-claims) must be examined.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a. o.
Application For Costs
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a. o.
This decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent No. 3 926 698 B1 and addresses the procedural interplay between cost decisions and subsequent appeal proceedings. The court clarified that under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure, a cost determination application must be filed within one month of the main proceedings decision. If a cost decision is rendered before the appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is later amended on appeal, the original cost decision loses its basis, and any amounts already reimbursed thereunder become recoverable as part of the costs in the post-appeal cost proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a.o.
Application For Costs
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a.o.
This case concerns a cost assessment proceeding related to European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., had originally sued the defendants for patent infringement, while the second defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. The patent was revoked for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, and the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, with the plaintiff ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. The defendants filed a cost assessment application seeking reimbursement of their attorney fees, travel costs, and court fees, based on a prior agreement between the parties.
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.