Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
327 cases · page 4 of 11
Showing 91–119LiNA 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.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH a. o. v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 061 575 B1, with the Austrian claimant M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH (joined by Katharina Schulz as third counter-defendant) asserting patent infringement against the Turkish defendant Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi. The dispute involved issues of indirect patent infringement, interim damages under Rule 119 RoP, and a counterclaim for revocation based on lack of inventive step. The court established key principles limiting recall and destruction remedies for indirectly infringing products, requiring plausible factual estimates for interim damages, and demanding substantive explanation of prior art combinations in revocation actions.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a.o.
Topsoe A/S, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, filed an application on December 4, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH in preparation for a future main action. The patent was granted on July 5, 2023, and is in force in twelve European countries including Germany. The applicant had previously revoked its opt-out from the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court on November 21, 2025.
Headwater Research LLC v.Apple Inc. a. o.
Headwater Research LLC filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities concerning European Patent EP 3 107 243 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the claimant withdrew the infringement action and the defendants withdrew the counterclaim for revocation, with both parties agreeing to bear their own costs and requesting reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The Düsseldorf Local Division allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with 60% reimbursement of court fees.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG a. o. v.A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (interim injunction) filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A.Menarini Diagnostics France SASU for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 1 962 668 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf addressed key legal questions regarding the relevance of independent process claims and their descriptions when determining the scope of protection of independent product claims. The court also examined whether an injunction covering the making of a product can be issued when the infringing product has so far been manufactured by a third party outside the contracting member states.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. a. o.
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement case concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, brought by Aesculap AG against three Shanghai Bojin-related entities. The court addressed four procedural matters: scheduling the oral hearing, the claimant's request to extend claims to include an additional product called the 'Bojin Rosenfräser,' the addition of Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a new party, and Defendant 1's request for re-establishment of rights. The court set the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, ordered the addition of the new party, and provisionally assessed the remaining requests while reserving final decisions for further deliberation.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants after Defendant 1 failed to lodge an objection within the prescribed time period, while Defendant 2's objection was considered on the merits. The court ordered both defendants to cease infringement, with additional information and penalty payment orders against Defendant 1.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This order, issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on November 26, 2025, concerns European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The applicant, Topsoe A/S, had filed an application for correction of an earlier order dated November 25, 2025, which contained address errors regarding the respondents SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The court corrected the addresses of the respondents and the production site of the first respondent in the operative part of the prior order.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
Topsoe A/S, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, filed an application on November 21, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of the two German respondents, SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, in preparation for a forthcoming main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on November 25, 2025, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure. The patent had been granted on July 5, 2023, without any opposition, and the applicant had withdrawn its previously declared opt-out from the jurisdiction of the court on the same day it filed the application.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order on a Rule 36 RoP application by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha seeking permission to submit further written pleadings in its infringement action concerning EP 3 686 683 B1 against Katun Germany GmbH and other Katun entities plus General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. The court permitted Canon to file the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion and a summary of its reasoning, but rejected the request to introduce evidence from an additional test purchase conducted in October 2024, finding the submission unjustifiably delayed and essentially redundant. The written procedure was deemed closed upon expiry of the filing deadline.
Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company a.o.
This case concerns European Patent No. 2 449 982 (as referenced in the order) and was filed by Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. against multiple Disney entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The proceedings were registered under case numbers UPC_CFI_87/2025 and UPC_CFI_488/2025. The available text only contains the procedural header identifying the parties, their legal representatives, and the patent in suit, with the substantive content of the order not provided.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. v.Siltronic AG a. o.
This order concerns the scope of disclosure of an expert report obtained during evidence preservation proceedings and the protection of confidential information under Article 58 of the relevant agreement. The applicant, Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd., is the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which relates to saw wires used in semiconductor wafer production. The respondents are Siltronic AG, a silicon wafer manufacturer that purchases saw wires from the applicant, and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG, a logistics company providing storage services. The presiding judge established guiding principles for handling trade secrets, personal data of third parties, and other confidential information when disclosing the expert report to the applicant.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a disposable laparoscopic morcellator, filed an urgent application before the Düsseldorf Local Division for the preservation of evidence and inspection against Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd. The application sought to inspect and analyze the Defendant's 'MORCELLIX' product being exhibited at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, which the Applicant suspected of being a slavish copy of its LiNA Xcise™ product. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and evidence preservation procedure to be carried out by an independent expert at the Defendant's exhibition booth, subject to confidentiality measures.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.,
LiNA Medical AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a laparoscopic morcellator, filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Applicant sought measures at the Defendant's exhibition booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, suspecting that the Defendant's exhibited disposable morcellator was a slavish copy of LiNA's Xcise™ product and infringed the patent. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and preservation of evidence procedure to be carried out by an independent expert, subject to confidentiality measures.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 024 099 B1 relating to a cable processing device, filed an application for an order of inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd. The application was filed on November 14, 2025, in preparation for a main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued the order on November 17, 2025, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. a. o.
Leap Tools Inc. filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 859 566 against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After difficulties in serving Wizart LLC and representations from Wizart Inc. that Wizart LLC was a non-existent company, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action against Wizart LLC. The Court permitted the partial withdrawal, finding that Wizart LLC had no legitimate interest in a decision on the merits since service had not yet been completed.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, sought inspection at the respondent's trade fair stand at the EMO Messe Hannover, which was ordered and executed in September 2025. Following the respondent's failure to assert any confidentiality interests regarding the expert's detailed description, the court ordered disclosure of the unredacted version to the applicant.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH a. o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing the Defendants' application for review under R. 333.1 RoP of a case management order that had dismissed their requests to extend time periods for filing a Rejoinder, a Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation, and a Defence to the Claimant's Application to amend the patent-in-suit. The court found the request for review admissible but unfounded, holding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate any hindrance or complication of legal defence warranting an extension, and that merely having less time than the opposing party does not constitute compelling reasons for extending statutory deadlines.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' request for security for legal costs in provisional measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The court held that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of substantiation regarding the alleged difficulty of enforcing a costs order in the United States, as their reliance on a prior Munich Local Division order was insufficient to establish facts specific to this case.
Occultech GmbH. v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a. o.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2, issued on October 31, 2025. The applicant, Occlutech GmbH, sought provisional measures in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out key legal principles regarding the scope of protection of device claims, the burden of presentation and proof in preliminary injunction proceedings, and the handling of disputed translations of prior art documents.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH a.o.
The applicant, sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 relating to a counter-current swimming device, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of the respondents ahead of a potential main infringement action. The respondents are wholesale distributors of inverter-controlled pool and garden technology, with the Austrian parent company marketing an 'InverJet' counter-current system. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order concerning the inspection and evidence preservation request filed on October 28, 2025.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, which relates to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. Defendant 1 reached a settlement with HP and agreed not to defend against the main motions, while service to Defendant 2 in China had not been completed. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order by default against Defendant 1, granting the preliminary injunction, information orders, and penalty payments, while reserving decision on costs and the application against Defendant 2.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. a. o.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. and Andreas Rentmeister e.K. for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. When service via the Chinese Central Authority under the Hague Convention failed after three and a half months—with Chinese authorities claiming the defendant did not exist at the provided address—the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. a. o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 859 566, in which the court permitted alternative service of the Statement of claim on Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure. After two failed attempts to serve Wizart LLC at its original Wilmington, Delaware address and at the registered agent's address in Newark, the court authorized service on the CEO at his business address in Gdańsk, Poland, finding that such service was permissible under Polish law.
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.