Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
250 cases · page 2 of 9
Showing 31–59LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues concerning the preservation and inspection of evidence in a medical technology dispute. The court ruled that if a defendant fails to utilize the provided CMS access code to comment on confidentiality interests after receiving an expert's detailed description, the applicant's right to proceed with disclosure is upheld. This ruling emphasizes the importance of timely digital engagement by parties involved in UPC proceedings.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a.o.
Topsoe A/S sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and two other entities in anticipation of a main infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 802 413 B1, which covers hydrogen production via steam methane reforming. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements under the UPC Agreement for obtaining evidence preservation before commencing full litigation.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a. o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
This interim conference in the UPC focused heavily on procedural matters for a complex infringement case involving Canon and Katun regarding developer supply containers. The court established clear deadlines, including December 18, 2025, for cost estimates and translations, while preparing detailed feature breakdowns of the claims for the upcoming oral hearing. This order signals that the parties are moving into the substantive phase, with the full panel set to decide on infringement and damages.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
In this UPC decision, the court addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation concerning a plastic purification device. The court dismissed the infringement suit, emphasizing that remedies like recall or destruction are generally inapplicable in cases of indirect infringement. Crucially, the ruling set high standards for provisional damages claims, requiring plausible factual support, and clarified the burden of proof in revocation actions, demanding detailed explanations of prior art combinations rather than mere citation.
Headwater Research LLC v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC allowed both parties to withdraw their respective actions. Headwater Research LLC withdrew its infringement claim against Apple Inc., and in return, the Defendants agreed to withdraw their counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 107 243 B1. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to a swift closure of complex patent litigation proceedings within the UPC framework.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l.
In this UPC case, Roche sought provisional measures against Menarini regarding the infringement of its sandwich sensor patent (EP 1 962 668 B1), which covers implantable sensors for continuous glucose monitoring. While the main application for an injunction was dismissed, the court issued important legal guidelines concerning claim scope and territorial reach of manufacturing injunctions. The decision reinforces principles on how process claims interact with product claims and confirms that anti-infringement measures can apply even when production occurs outside the UPC contracting states.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addresses procedural matters in a patent infringement case involving Aesculap AG and several Shanghai Bojin entities concerning EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, while also proposing to expand the scope of the dispute to include an additional product, the 'Bojin Rosenfräser.' This move is intended to ensure procedural efficiency and prevent future litigation.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard sought preliminary injunctions against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic regarding its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). Although the court dismissed the application for provisional measures in most aspects, it issued a highly specific order. This ruling forces the defendant to disclose detailed information about the origin and distribution of infringing products, backed by severe daily penalty payments if they fail to comply.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC concerns a procedural matter related to an application for inspection and evidence gathering concerning EP 3 802 413 B1. The court did not rule on the merits but instead corrected factual errors in the initial filing, specifically regarding the precise addresses of the respondent's various locations. This highlights the importance of meticulous detail when submitting procedural applications to the UPC.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH
Topsoe A/S sought provisional measures, specifically an order for inspection and evidence gathering at the premises of SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, ahead of a potential infringement lawsuit. The patent in question covers hydrogen production using steam methane reforming with an electrically heated catalyst bed. Although Topsoe successfully initiated the process, the Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for inspection and evidence preservation. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain preliminary investigative measures within the UPC framework.
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 by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha to submit further evidence regarding additional infringing products found during a late test purchase. The Court rejected the Claimant's attempt to introduce new arguments concerning these additional model numbers, citing principles of due process and procedural economy. The ruling stressed that evidence should be presented without delay when relevant deadlines are approaching, especially if the subject matter is materially identical to what has already been pleaded.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG
In this procedural case, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed a dispute over the disclosure of an expert report obtained during evidence preservation measures. The respondent (Siltronic AG) sought to keep certain sensitive commercial data—such as pricing and supplier bank details—confidential. The court ruled that while trade secret protection is paramount, the information relevant to potential infringement claims must be made available, leading to a partial redaction of the expert report before its disclosure to the claimant.
Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company a.o. (and associated entities)
This Düsseldorf Local Division order addresses procedural matters in an ongoing infringement action concerning EP 2 449 782. The Claimant sought permission to submit a further written pleading to counter the Defendants' arguments regarding non-infringement and FRAND defenses. The Court granted this request, emphasizing that principles of due process mandate giving parties adequate opportunity to address disputed technical features and legal claims. This decision keeps the written procedure open for further exchange of pleadings.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG sought provisional measures at the UPC Düsseldorf Local Division to preserve evidence by inspecting a 'disposable morcellator' exhibited by Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. during the MEDICA trade fair, citing suspected infringement of EP 2 593 025 B1. The Applicant argued that detailed analysis was necessary to confirm component identity and potential infringement. However, the Court ultimately rejected the application for preservation of evidence.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG sought provisional measures, specifically an inspection of a competitor's product (MORCELLIX) exhibited at MEDICA, to assess potential infringement of its laparoscopic morcellator patent. The UPC Local Division granted the request for evidence preservation and inspection but rejected the broader application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the court's willingness to facilitate early technical investigations necessary for complex medical device cases.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division permitted Leap Tools Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Wizart LLC (Defendant 2). The court found that because service of process had not been completed and Defendant 2 appeared non-existent or unserviceable, it lacked a legitimate interest in continuing the lawsuit. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding multi-defendant actions when one party becomes practically unreachable.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG sought provisional measures to inspect the respondent's automated cable processing machine, 'BZW-3005,' at a trade fair in Munich, alleging potential infringement of EP 3 024 099 B1. The claimant argued that prior attempts to examine the machine were impossible due to security and access restrictions. However, the Local Division ultimately rejected the application for inspection and evidence preservation. This decision highlights the stringent procedural hurdles required to obtain urgent investigative measures within the UPC framework.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed an application for inspection and evidence preservation concerning EP 2 983 864 B1. The court granted the claimant access to the unredacted expert report following the on-site investigation at the respondent's trade show booth. However, this order is conditional: the claimant must file a main infringement action against STEROS within a strict deadline, otherwise, the preservation measures will lapse.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division rejected Surftown GmbH's attempt to extend critical deadlines in a complex infringement/revocation case involving wave machine technology. The Defendants argued that delays caused by confidentiality procedures unfairly disadvantaged them compared to the Claimant. However, the Court firmly maintained that extensions must be based on genuine legal complications or hindrances, not simply on comparative timing advantages. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to strict adherence to procedural timelines and efficient case management.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
In a critical procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the challenges of serving foreign defendants in urgent UPC proceedings. The court ruled that if formal service attempts via international conventions stall or fail, and all other reasonable efforts have been exhausted, the steps taken by the applicant can be deemed sufficient for proper legal notice under Rule 275.2 RoP. This decision provides significant procedural relief to applicants facing unresponsive foreign jurisdictions in high-stakes IP litigation.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 850 660, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf granted an extension of time periods requested by Micron Semiconductor and its affiliates. The defendants argued that the sheer volume of technical evidence (approximately 3,000 pages) submitted by Yangtze Memory Technologies required more time for analysis, especially considering potential prior use rights. The Court agreed, emphasizing the need to afford defendants a sufficient right to be heard while ensuring effective case management across multiple parallel proceedings.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC Local Division dismissed the Defendants' demand that Align Technology provide security for legal costs. The Defendants had argued that due to the Applicant being based in the United States, enforcement of any potential costs award would incur substantial and potentially non-reimbursable expenses. However, the Court found that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof, specifically by not providing evidence on the foreign law applicable for enforcement in the US. This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required when seeking security for costs within the UPC.
Occultech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A.
Occultech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical for alleged infringement of its medical device patent (EP 1 998 686 B2), specifically concerning the MemoCarna occluders. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, finding that the necessary prerequisites for an injunction were not satisfied. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain provisional measures in UPC proceedings.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. sought provisional measures to inspect and preserve evidence related to the 'InverJet' product manufactured by Inverquark Deutschland GmbH, alleging patent infringement of EP 3 653 275 B8 (Counter-Current Swimming Device). The court examined the request for inspection at a trade fair booth but ultimately dismissed the application. This decision highlights the stringent procedural requirements under the UPC for obtaining evidence preservation measures prior to filing main infringement proceedings.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding alleged infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The court granted a preliminary injunction and imposed significant penalty payments, demonstrating the immediate enforcement power available under the UPC system for interim relief. This case underscores the importance of timely action when seeking protection against counterfeit or infringing components in the fast-moving printer cartridge market.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures against a Chinese defendant, the court addressed the critical issue of service failure under international conventions. Despite official notification from Chinese authorities that the company did not exist at the provided address, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted the applicant's request. The ruling established that if the applicant provides credible evidence verifying the accuracy of the registered address, prior attempts can be deemed good service, ensuring the applicant's urgent legal rights are protected.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a critical hurdle in the infringement action brought by Leap Tools Inc. against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC: serving the Statement of Claim. After multiple failed attempts to locate the Defendants' current addresses, the Claimant successfully argued that good reason existed for alternative service. The Court granted permission to serve Defendant 2 at their CEO's business address in Poland, allowing the infringement proceedings to move forward.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.
In this UPC case concerning egg packaging technology (EP 2 755 901 B1), Hartmann Packaging A/S sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH for infringement and simultaneously filed a revocation counterclaim. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent rights. Crucially, the court also rejected the revocation counterclaim, affirming the validity of the patent while providing important guidance on interpreting 'the same invention' under Article 87 EPC.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's attempt to introduce new claims related to indirect patent infringement outside of the established case management framework. The Court strictly enforced procedural rules, finding that these new requests constituted an impermissible amendment to the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance for patentees to adhere rigorously to the UPC's procedural timetable and filing requirements when seeking expanded relief.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH
In this procedural case, Dolby International AB initiated proceedings against Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş regarding European Patent EP 3 605 534. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order cancelling the previously scheduled oral hearing due to unforeseen circumstances involving the defendants' legal representation. A new date for the proceedings has been tentatively set for February 4, 2026.
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.