Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
250 cases · page 4 of 9
Showing 91–119Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for provisional measures related to EP 1 998 686 B1. Although the core issue is infringement, the respondents raised challenges regarding the patent's validity. The court ruled that given these dual issues—infringement and invalidity—it was appropriate to enhance the judicial panel by appointing an additional technically qualified judge. This proactive step ensures early expert involvement in complex medical technology cases.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH; Arçelik A.Ş
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division allowed Dolby International AB to submit an additional written statement concerning the FRAND objection raised by Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. The court found that granting this request was necessary for fairness and ensuring all parties had a full opportunity to address complex arguments regarding standard essential patents (SEPs). This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines, particularly when dealing with intricate FRAND defenses.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the protection of confidential information in a complex infringement and revocation action concerning surfing technology (EP 2 728 089 B1). The Court meticulously defined which technical details within the defense statements and briefs must be classified as confidential. This ruling reinforces the strict confidentiality protocols available under the UPC framework, ensuring that sensitive commercial information remains protected during litigation.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In a procedural ruling within the Düsseldorf Local Court, the UPC addressed the language of proceedings for infringement case UPC_CFI_496/2025. Headwater Research LLC is suing Samsung Electronics entities over patent EP 3 110 072 B1. Both parties jointly requested that the court switch the procedural language to English, matching the language of the granted patent. The Court accepted this request, ensuring the case will proceed in English.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf stayed infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 252 857. The stay was granted because the issues raised in this case are substantially identical to those currently under appeal regarding patent EP 3 536 712. This decision prioritizes judicial efficiency and proper administration of justice, preventing redundant litigation while respecting fundamental rights.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning confidential information, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC restricted access to certain documents submitted by Curio Bioscience Inc. (Defendant) during cost proceedings against 10x Genomics, Inc. (Claimant). The court applied Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262A RoP to protect trade secrets within the litigation process. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to balancing the right to a fair trial with the protection of sensitive commercial information.
igus GmbH v.Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
igus GmbH initiated an infringement action against Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. concerning its patent EP 3 912 243 B1, which covers compact cable protection conduits for cleanroom applications. The court issued a default judgment confirming the alleged infringement and granting broad injunctions across UPC member states. This case highlights the enforcement mechanisms available in the UPC against non-EU entities operating within the European market.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG, Cybex Retail GmbH
In a recent procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate two related actions: an infringement claim brought by Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. against Cybex GmbH and its affiliates, alongside a counterclaim for revocation. The court found that proceeding jointly was the most efficient approach, allowing both validity and infringement issues to be assessed under a single, uniform interpretation by the same judicial panel. This decision sets the framework for the full trial, which is yet to commence.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
In this provisional measures case, Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG sought urgent relief against BAG Diagnostics GmbH concerning EP 3 548 898 B1. Although the core infringement dispute remains pending, the court recognized that the respondent was simultaneously challenging the patent's validity. Consequently, the Düsseldorf Local Division proactively ordered the assignment of an additional technically qualified judge to ensure expert handling of the complex technical and legal issues from the outset.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning cost proceedings, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC granted protection for confidential information submitted by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience. The court ruled that specific cost items were indeed trade secrets and restricted access to them. This decision reinforces the practical application of Art. 58 UPCA, balancing the need for confidentiality with the right to an effective remedy in complex litigation.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
In this procedural order, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf addressed the complex interplay between an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning several coffee system patents. The court decided to handle both claims jointly under Article 33(3)(a) EPC, streamlining the proceedings. This early decision was deemed efficient given the moderate technical complexity of the subject matter.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf halted proceedings to address critical deficiencies in the Claimant's evidence regarding patent ownership. The court found that the documentation supporting various assignments and authorizations was confusing or incomplete, particularly concerning retroactive approvals. This ruling underscores the necessity for claimants to provide a clear, legally sound chain of title when asserting infringement rights under the UPC.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
In a procedural order concerning an infringement and revocation action, the UPC granted protection for confidential information sought by the defendants. The court recognized that specific technical design details of the challenged embodiment qualified as trade secrets under Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the importance of confidentiality measures in complex patent litigation, ensuring sensitive know-how remains protected while maintaining procedural fairness.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf issued an order to address significant ambiguities regarding patent ownership and assignment validity. The Claimant, Ona Patents SL, was challenged on inconsistencies related to its chain of title, particularly concerning assignments made by Ekahau Oy (Counter-Defendant 2). The court did not rule on infringement or revocation but instead mandated the submission of critical legal documents, such as Asset Purchase Agreements and board resolutions, before the written procedure could proceed.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC provisional measures case, Aesculap AG sought to enforce a prior disclosure order against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding specific surgical instruments. The court ruled that while the underlying obligation was already in place, it granted the request for coercive fines (Zwangsgeld). This decision is significant as it provides strong enforcement teeth to discovery and information-gathering orders within the UPC framework, ensuring patentees can effectively compel disclosure from alleged infringers.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
In this UPC decision, N.V. Nutricia and Nestlé Health Science reached a settlement leading to the withdrawal of the infringement action concerning EP 2 359 858 B1. The court confirmed that an estimated assessment is sufficient for valuing actions in settled cases. Although the infringement claim was dropped, the counterclaim for revocation was disposed of, with both parties ultimately bearing their own costs.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France, S.A.S., Samsung Electronics GmbH
In a significant decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the infringement claim brought by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics while simultaneously granting the counterclaim for revocation regarding Claim 1 of EP 3 110 069 B1. The patent covered traffic control mechanisms in wireless devices, specifically related to Android's Data Saver functionality. This outcome highlights that a successful validity challenge can completely negate an infringement claim within the UPC framework.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In this procedural order concerning a solar technology patent, the UPC Local Division addressed a request for security of legal costs. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, ordering the Claimant to provide EUR 100,000 in security. This decision reinforces the principle that when multiple parties are involved, the determination of cost ceilings must consider the group's overall interest rather than individual liability shares.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
This UPC decision confirms the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures concerning EP 1 957 544 B1. DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC., the applicant, successfully withdrew its request with the agreement of Greenchemicals S.R.L., the defendant. The court formally closed the proceedings and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees to the Applicant. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to discontinue an action.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf decided to consolidate two related actions: an infringement lawsuit brought by TRUMPF against IPG Laser, and a counterclaim for revocation filed by IPG. The court determined that handling both claims simultaneously is procedurally efficient and substantively advantageous, ensuring a unified legal interpretation across both validity and infringement issues. This decision sets a precedent for the strategic management of complex UPC cases involving intertwined infringement and invalidity challenges.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
In a case involving Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG and CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled on the withdrawal of an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties mutually agreed to terminate the proceedings before reaching a final judgment on merits. The court formally accepted these withdrawals, concluding the case while also ordering the reimbursement of 60% of the respective court fees paid by each party.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request for an extension of time related to confidential information protection. The Claimant, QIAGEN Sciences, LLC, sought more time to respond to the Defendants' Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation. The Court granted the extension, emphasizing that statutory deadlines must be adjusted when access to critical, unredacted evidence is delayed.
Husqvarna AB v.POSITEC Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance granted POSITEC Germany GmbH's request to change the language of its infringement case from German to English. The court balanced the arguments, ultimately prioritizing the defendant's position regarding fairness and operational needs over the claimant's preference for the patent grant language. This decision reinforces the importance of considering the practical disadvantages faced by parties when determining procedural language in UPC proceedings.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A., bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of protecting trade secrets within a high-stakes UPC infringement and revocation action between QIAGEN Sciences, LLC and bioMérieux S.A. The Court meticulously balanced the need for transparency with the imperative to protect sensitive commercial information, particularly regarding peptide sequences and analytical results. By granting specific confidentiality classifications and access restrictions, the ruling sets a strong precedent for managing proprietary data in complex biotech litigation before the UPC.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of its surgical instrument patent (EP 2 892 442 B1). While the core request for injunctions was dismissed, the court issued significant procedural rulings. These rulings clarify how courts handle parties who fail to attend oral hearings and set a high bar for what constitutes a 'substantially contested' allegation of infringement in UPC proceedings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a cost allocation dispute following a prior judgment where FUJIFILM sued Kodak for infringement and simultaneously faced revocation counterclaims. The court examined extensive claims by Kodak regarding high legal fees, expert witness expenses, and travel costs incurred during the complex proceedings. While some specific travel and accommodation costs were deemed reimbursable after reduction, the Court firmly rejected the claim for representation costs related to the cost procedure itself, setting clear boundaries on what is recoverable in summary cost decisions.
QUANTIFICARE S.A. v.Canfield Scientific, Inc., Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l., ESTHETEC SAS
In UPC case UPC_CFI_559/2024, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued a procedural order regarding EP 3 156 843 B1. The court utilized its discretion to streamline the litigation process by deciding early that it would handle both the infringement claim brought by QUANTIFICARE S.A. and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Canfield Scientific and others simultaneously. This decision aims to ensure a unified legal interpretation of the patent claims while maximizing procedural efficiency.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a motion regarding the partial refund of court fees following multiple settlements in an infringement and revocation action concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. Despite reaching agreements, the claimants and respondents sought fee refunds based on procedural rules. The Düsseldorf Local Division denied these requests, holding that because the oral proceedings had already concluded when the settlements were reached, the criteria for reimbursement under UPC Rules could not be satisfied. This ruling emphasizes the court's focus on administrative efficiency and the actual workload generated by complex settlement procedures.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG initiated proceedings against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) concerning EP 2 892 442 B1, a patent related to surgical torque-transmitting instruments. The Düsseldorf Local Court issued an order setting the technical scope of Claim 1 for the upcoming oral hearing on July 1, 2025. This procedural step is crucial as it defines the precise features that will be debated regarding potential infringement or validity in this UPC case.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS
In a procedural ruling concerning the protection of confidential information, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC granted an order to classify certain details from a settlement agreement as trade secrets. This decision reinforces the practical application of Article 58 EPC and Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure within the UPC framework. The case highlights how parties can seek judicial protection for sensitive business information during complex litigation, even when the core infringement claims are not addressed.
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.