Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
282 cases · page 5 of 10
Showing 121–149F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. Defendant 6 (Rubin Medical ApS) filed a request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information. The court granted the request, classifying information contained in the unredacted settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and Defendant 6 as confidential, and ordered Defendants 1-5 to treat such information as confidential and not use it outside the proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc. sued Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1, which relates to methods and products for localised or spatial detection of nucleic acids in tissue samples. The dispute concerned Curio's 'Curio Seeker Spatial Mapping KIT,' a slide-based product with spatially indexed beads used for spatial transcriptomics. The Düsseldorf Local Division found partial infringement, issuing injunctive relief, ordering information/accounting, and awarding damages, with costs split 30% to the Claimant and 70% to the Defendant.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 110 069 B1. The Court held that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the applicable foreign law and its application to demonstrate that enforcement of a potential cost order against the US-based Claimant would be unduly burdensome, and also failed to establish any tangible risk of insolvency.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., Katun Germany GmbH, Katun Corporation, and Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, addressing the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided to hear both the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, with the consent of all parties, for reasons of efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 892 442 B1 in provisional measures proceedings. The respondent's requests for simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing and for permission to participate via video conference were only partially granted: the respondent was allowed to hire an interpreter at its own cost, but the costs were not to be treated as procedural costs, and the blanket request for video conference participation was rejected.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order concerns a request by 10x Genomics to modify a confidentiality order issued on 11 March 2024 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Applicant sought to replace two named paralegals in the confidentiality club who were no longer available, and alternatively to expand the club to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings. The Court allowed the substitution of the two unavailable paralegals with a new paralegal and a foreign language correspondent, but rejected the broader request to expand the confidentiality club.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaims for revocation. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the plaintiffs (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH) and defendants 1 and 2 (Tandem Diabetes Care entities) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure. The proceedings against defendants 3 to 6 were ordered to continue, and the settlement details were ordered to be kept confidential.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd., Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff partially withdrew the action against Defendant 2 (Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH) following an out-of-court settlement. The court allowed the partial withdrawal, declared the proceedings against Defendant 2 terminated, and ruled on costs in accordance with the parties' agreement.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application under R. 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of obvious inaccuracies in a decision pronounced on May 8, 2025. The court granted the plaintiff's correction request, finding the identified points to be obvious errors, and the defendant did not oppose the corrections. The corrections addressed various orders regarding information disclosure, accounting, destruction of infringing products, recall obligations, and damages, as well as a paragraph concerning auxiliary requests for maintenance of the patent.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., and Siemens Healthcare SAS
Siemens sought an order requiring Hologic to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000 each for the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation) in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 352 431 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the request, holding that Siemens failed to meet its burden of providing evidence of the applicable foreign law and its application regarding enforcement of cost orders in Massachusetts, USA, where Hologic is domiciled.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. The court granted the request of Defendants 1, 2, and 6 (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS) for protection of confidential information under R. 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The order classifies certain information contained in unredacted versions of specific annexes as confidential and restricts access to a limited number of named persons on the plaintiffs' side.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
This is a preliminary procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 1 957 544 B1, addressing the Applicant's request to classify certain financial information as confidential under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the confidentiality order, classifying specific financial information in the Applicant's comments and Exhibit HL 15 as confidential, while rejecting the Defendant's arguments that the information was publicly available. Access was limited to the Defendant's representatives and one named administrative employee, with penalties for culpable breach.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. Following a main decision largely favoring the plaintiff on infringement and maintaining the patent in restricted form, the plaintiff sought reimbursement of EUR 84,950 in costs. The defendant objected that the costs were disproportionate given the limited infringement period and modest economic significance. The court rejected the objections, finding the defendant failed to provide substantiated arguments on disproportionality, and ordered full reimbursement of the capped amount.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc., Amgen GmbH, Amgen Europe B.V., Amgen NV, Amgen S.R.L., Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 536 712 B1, owned by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and exclusively licensed to Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, which claims a second medical use of a PCSK9 inhibitor for reducing lipoprotein(a) levels in specific patient populations. The Claimants alleged that Amgen's marketing of Repatha® (evolocumab) infringed the patent, while Amgen counterclaimed for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimants failed to prove infringement of the second medical use claim while the Defendants failed to establish that the patent claims lacked novelty or inventive step.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1, titled 'Kreiselpumpenaggregat' (centrifugal pump assembly), directed at heating circulation pumps. The court found that the defendant infringed the patent by offering and distributing heating circulation pumps in Germany, France, and Italy, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for revocation. The defendant was ordered to cease infringement, provide information, render accounts, recall infringing products, and pay provisional damages of EUR 64,000.
Ona Patents SL & Ekahau Oy v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH & Apple Retail France EURL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing an application to protect confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the unredacted version of the Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence regarding the Application to amend the patent as confidential, restricting access to specified representatives and the CEO of the Claimant.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 2 May 2025 in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The order addresses preparatory matters for the oral hearing, including translation requirements, publication requests, cost estimates, and time limits for oral submissions. The court set a deadline of 9 May 2025 for the parties to respond to the court's requests and information.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. and Others
This is an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1, brought by Evac Oy against six defendants. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the claimant and defendants 4 to 6 (S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH, Katharina Kiran Singh Kang, and Shaminder Singh Kang) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, while ordering that the proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 (Shanghai VacDrain, VD Solutions GmbH, and Yong Cao) continue.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The court decided to add a technically qualified judge to the panel in proceedings for interim measures, after the respondent challenged the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. Neither party objected to the addition within the given deadline.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Court addressed the Defendant's late application to make a sample available for inspection, noting that the Defendant had not provided reasons for submitting the sample after the closure of written proceedings and only one week before the hearing. The Court indicated it was considering disregarding the late submission under R. 9.2 RoP and would decide on the issue at the oral hearing.
The Walt Disney Company Limited and The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
The Walt Disney entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. before the Local Division Düsseldorf, applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2449782 was granted. InterDigital opposed the request, arguing no significant disadvantage had been shown. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the language changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Henle Baumaschinentechnik GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 770 330 B1, in which the court granted the claimant's application for an extension of time limits under Rule 9(3) RoP. The claimant had received a USB stick containing key annexes (MW 3 to MW 5, MW 17, and MW 27) only on April 15, 2025, nearly two weeks after the defendant's late submission to the court registry, justifying the extension of deadlines for reply to the statement of defense and counterclaim for revocation from May 28, 2025 to June 16, 2025.
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
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, in which the court addressed the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, rather than separating them, citing reasons of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of trade secrets and confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court classified certain financial information submitted by the defendant as confidential and restricted access to a limited number of persons on the plaintiff's side. The plaintiff raised no objections to the classification, and the order was issued by mutual agreement of the parties.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 466 498 B1. The court granted the plaintiff's application under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information, classifying certain cost-related details (invoice numbers, hourly rates, hours worked) submitted in cost determination proceedings as confidential. The court found the plaintiff's interest in confidentiality outweighed the defendants' interest in full access, particularly since the plaintiff did not seek to restrict the circle of entitled persons but only to prevent disclosure to third parties.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. Following a January 14, 2025 decision that largely upheld the infringement claim and dismissed the defendants' revocation counterclaim, the defendants sought recovery of 9,732.21 EUR in costs. The court found the defendants had erroneously used a consolidated dispute value of 2,000,000 EUR instead of the 1,000,000 EUR value for the infringement claim alone, and awarded only 4,866.11 EUR in recoverable costs.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 186 937. With the consent of the parties, the court granted the application of Defendants 2 to 4 (TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, and TP-Link Enterprises France) dated April 17, 2025, and ordered the stay of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295 lit. a) of the Rules of Procedure.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The court addressed two key issues: whether the use of multiple lawyers and patent attorneys on one side affects cost recoverability, and whether costs from preliminary injunction proceedings are separately recoverable from the main proceedings. The court held that multiple representatives do not bar cost recovery as long as no additional costs are generated, and that the cost caps for interim proceedings and main proceedings must be determined separately.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation against four TP-LINK entities. With the consent of the parties, the court ordered a stay of the proceedings against defendants 2 to 4 pursuant to Rule 295(a) RoP, based on the defendants' application dated March 23, 2025.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, and Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. With the consent of all parties, the court ordered the stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure based on the plaintiff's application dated April 9, 2025.
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.