Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
250 cases · page 3 of 9
Showing 61–89Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the scope of infringement claims in a stroller patent case (EP 1 905 615). The Defendants challenged the Claimant's attempt to extend its argument from literal infringement to equivalence for additional features. The Panel ultimately upheld the initial order, confirming that expanding the equivalence argument does not fundamentally alter the nature or scope of the dispute. This ruling provides clarity on how the doctrine of equivalence can be applied procedurally within UPC case management.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In this procedural order, Ona Patents SL sought to review a previous court decision regarding an interim conference, arguing that related parallel proceedings had generated new relevant arguments. The UPC Local Division dismissed the request, emphasizing the legal independence of different cases within the Unified Patent Court framework. This ruling reinforces strict adherence to case management procedures and limits the ability of parties to introduce late or external material simply to influence scheduling.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 110 072 B1, the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf corrected an error in its prior decision. The case involved Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., addressing issues related to patent infringement and costs. The court's ruling focused solely on rectifying a clerical and calculation mistake regarding the reimbursement of claimant fees.
F. 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 Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order to protect confidential information during proceedings related to EP 1 962 668 B1. The court classified detailed manufacturing processes, commercial negotiation records, pricing data, and expert witness statements as trade secrets. This decision underscores the importance of robust confidentiality measures within UPC litigation, allowing parties to safeguard sensitive business intelligence.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural matter concerning a pending revocation counterclaim in an infringement action involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics. The Court allowed the Defendants to withdraw their counterclaim because no final appeal had been lodged against prior decisions, which was consented to by the Claimant. Consequently, the proceedings related to the counterclaim were closed, with both parties agreeing to bear their own costs.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC initiated a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics and its subsidiaries regarding EP 3 110 072 B1. However, before the written procedure concluded, the Claimant voluntarily withdrew the suit with the full agreement of all Defendants. The UPC Local Division Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawal, leading to the closure of the proceedings. Notably, the Court applied rules allowing for a 60% reimbursement of court fees for the Defendants due to the early withdrawal.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, and bioMérieux Benelux BV
Labrador Diagnostics LLC has initiated a patent infringement action against multiple bioMérieux entities before the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 756 767 B1. This procedural order sets the stage for the litigation, scheduling an oral hearing for November 27, 2025. The parties are now required to prepare their arguments and attend the hearing, which will be audio recorded.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
In a case involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawal of an ongoing infringement action. Although the court had previously dismissed the infringement claim and revoked the patent (to the extent of claim 1), the parties mutually agreed to terminate the proceedings. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing actions to be withdrawn when there is no pending appeal and mutual consent exists.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation regarding the respondent's 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell,' citing difficulties in accessing the machine. The UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately dismissed this application. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain provisional measures, even when a main infringement action is pending, emphasizing that procedural requirements must be strictly met.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE. LTD.
In a case involving TP-LINK and Atlas Global Technologies, the Düsseldorf Local Court issued an order suspending the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 353 901 and EP 3 186 937. The suspension was reached by mutual agreement between all parties involved in the litigation. This procedural step allows both sides to pause the UPC action while awaiting final decisions from the European Patent Office (EPO) or the conclusion of opposition appeals.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company and associated entities (including BAMTech LLC)
In a procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate an infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings against The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates. The case also includes a counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 080 349. By combining both claims, the Court aims for judicial efficiency, ensuring that any determination of patent validity is consistent with the subsequent assessment of infringement. This early decision sets the procedural framework for the complex dispute involving digital streaming technologies.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a request for the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of both an infringement action and associated counterclaims. The Court analyzed the procedural status of the case—specifically that regular pleadings had been exchanged, but the written procedure was not formally closed. Applying relevant Rules of Procedure (R. 370.9(b)(ii)), the Court granted a partial reimbursement of 40% of the fees to the Defendants.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH; Arçelik A.Ş
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application regarding simultaneous interpretation in a patent infringement case. The claimant, Dolby International AB, sought judicial assistance to ensure their non-German speaking representatives could participate fully in the oral hearing. Although the court agreed that interpretation was necessary for active participation, it refused to bear the costs of the service. Instead, the claimant is permitted to hire an interpreter at their own expense, setting a clear precedent on the financial burden of language support in UPC proceedings.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order from Düsseldorf Local Chamber, the court addressed the claimant's attempts to introduce late amendments to the scope of patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The claimant sought permission to modify its claims based on new arguments raised by the defendant in a counterclaim for revocation. However, the court rejected these applications, emphasizing that merely claiming 'surprise' is insufficient justification. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements under the UPC Rules of Procedure (R. 30.2 VerfO), requiring applicants to demonstrate a clear link between the opponent's arguments and the necessity of the late claim amendments. This decision serves as a strong warning against using procedural maneuvers to circumvent established timelines in patent litigation.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Chamber addressed disputes over the scope and timing of submissions in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 2 624 031 B1. The respondent sought to exclude large sections of the claimant's pleadings, arguing they were untimely or irrelevant to the patent validity challenge. Conversely, the claimant requested permission to introduce further arguments regarding claim waivers relevant to the infringement case. The court rejected all procedural motions, maintaining strict adherence to the UPC Rules of Procedure.
Eyesmatch Ltd v.Microsoft Corp.
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing an infringement action when parties reach a settlement outside of court. Eyesmatch Ltd withdrew its claim against Microsoft Corp., and the Court formally closed the proceedings. The ruling highlights that mutual agreement between parties can supersede standard cost determination procedures, provided all necessary declarations are made.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a costs application following the withdrawal of an infringement action against Apple Inc. The Court determined that despite the case not being formally closed, the extensive exchange of pleadings warranted only a partial reimbursement of court fees. This ruling provides clarity on how the UPC assesses fee reimbursement when parties withdraw actions during the written procedure phase.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC issued an order clarifying confidentiality obligations in the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings involving Ona Patents SL and Google Ireland Limited. The court explicitly classified certain contract documents and internal company information as confidential under UPCA rules. This decision reinforces the strict handling requirements for sensitive commercial data within the unified patent litigation framework, ensuring that proprietary information is protected during the legal process.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf issued a confidentiality order concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, Ona Patents SL, restricting access to sensitive exhibits and documents. Crucially, the court also prevented the disclosure of this confidential information to parallel national proceedings, setting a strong precedent for maintaining secrecy within UPC litigation.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed Ona Patents SL to withdraw its infringement action against Apple Inc., and simultaneously permitted the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation filed by the defendants. The court confirmed that since all parties had reached an agreement regarding cost allocation (each party bearing its own costs), no formal cost decision was required under the Rules of Procedure. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can streamline litigation, even when complex infringement and validity issues are involved.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Nederland N.V.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving Avago Technologies and various Renault entities. The Court granted the request, citing fairness grounds, the international nature of the parties, and the predominant use of English in the relevant technical field. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC regarding procedural language when supported by objective circumstances.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
Ecovacs Robotics sought provisional measures—specifically an inspection and evidence preservation order—against Roborock (HK) in the UPC, alleging infringement of its robot localization patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The claimant argued that Roborock's vacuum cleaners utilized the patented technology. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain urgent evidence preservation orders in UPC proceedings.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard Development Company sought provisional measures against two defendants regarding the alleged infringement of its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). The Düsseldorf Local Division granted certain provisional orders, notably imposing significant penalty payments on Defendant 2 for manufacturing or importing infringing devices. This decision underscores the UPC's ability to swiftly enforce rights through interim measures while maintaining flexibility regarding subsequent merits proceedings.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG; Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
In this UPC infringement case, the claimant sought to enforce EP 3 805 415 against Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH for offering and distributing metal plates. The defendants requested an extension of time to file their defense due to ongoing laboratory analysis of material samples. The Local Division granted a one-week extension, recognizing the need for thorough preparation, but denied requests for further delays, setting clear boundaries on procedural flexibility.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
In this UPC case concerning an infringement action involving EP 1 998 686 B2, the court addressed a motion regarding the protection of confidential information. The Lokalkammer Düsseldorf granted the request to classify specific data as trade secrets under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262A VerfO. Crucially, the court ruled that the claimant's CEO must be granted access to this sensitive information, despite objections from the defendants who feared competitive disadvantage.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Cybex Retail GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's application to change its infringement claims regarding a swivel locking device for strollers (EP 1 905 615). The Claimant sought to modify claim language, primarily by altering how components were allocated between the 'seat' and the 'base' of the wheel bearing assembly. While the court found that the proposed extension of equivalence arguments was not fundamentally changing the targeted structure, it ultimately denied the application for leave to change the claim.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG; Siemens Healthcare GmbH; Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V.; Siemens Healthcare SAS
In a procedural order concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2 352 431 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues of trade secret protection. The court granted the request to classify certain information regarding the design and functioning of the attacked embodiments as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the mechanism for protecting sensitive commercial data during complex UPC litigation involving major medical device manufacturers.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd; CUPOWER Europe GmbH
In a complex infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 011 218 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC issued an order suspending the proceedings. This decision was made at the request and agreement of all involved parties, who are currently engaged in parallel settlement discussions. The suspension allows the parties to pursue a negotiated resolution without immediate judicial intervention.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This UPC decision is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement and revocation action concerning egg packaging (EP 2 755 901 B1). The court has meticulously defined the technical scope of the dispute for the upcoming oral hearing. Key focus areas include the interpretation of structural elements, such as the retainment projection and nose, and the specific manufacturing method involving balancing deformations during suction molding. This order sets a clear roadmap for both parties to prepare their arguments.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Inventronics GmbH
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG initiated infringement proceedings against Inventronics GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC. However, recognizing that both parties were engaged in ongoing settlement discussions, the court issued an order suspending the entire case. This decision allows the parties to resolve their dispute outside of litigation while maintaining the legal status quo.
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.