Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
250 cases · page 5 of 9
Showing 121–149InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by The Walt Disney Company group to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court found the application admissible and granted the request, citing fairness and consistency with previous rulings in related cases. This decision is significant as it reinforces the practical application of Article 49(5) UPCA, allowing parties to successfully petition for a language change based on the patent's grant language.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc.
10x Genomics sued Curio Bioscience for infringing its patent covering spatial detection of nucleic acids using array technology. After a detailed examination by the Düsseldorf Local Division, the court issued a mixed ruling. While infringement was found for certain claims (like Claim 14), the core claim (Claim 1) was not infringed. The action resulted in partial success for 10x Genomics, setting out specific financial and operational parameters for future enforcement.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
In this costs application concerning an infringement and revocation action, the Defendants sought to compel Headwater Research LLC (the Claimant) to provide substantial security for legal costs due to its US domicile. The UPC Local Division dismissed this request, finding that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. The court emphasized that a mere argument about enforcement difficulty is insufficient, especially when the claimant possesses significant, revenue-generating assets like a large patent portfolio.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha initiated infringement proceedings against General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. and related entities concerning EP 3 686 683 B1, which included a counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a Procedural Order confirming that both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim would be heard jointly. This decision streamlines the litigation process by ensuring a unified interpretation of the patent's scope across both validity and infringement claims.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC case, Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe). The core dispute revolved around procedural matters: specifically, whether the respondent could receive simultaneous interpretation and participate via video conference during the oral hearing. The court partially granted the request, allowing the respondent to hire an interpreter at their own expense, but rejected the formal application for state-funded interpretation and denied the video conferencing option due to insufficient justification.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request by the Applicant, 10x Genomics, to expand access rights within the confidentiality club for its legal representatives' firm. The Applicant sought to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings due to staffing issues. The Court partially granted this request, allowing the replacement of two specific members but firmly rejecting the broader proposal to grant blanket access to all paralegals.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC confirmed a settlement agreement reached between F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. The court upheld the request for confidentiality regarding the terms of this settlement. While the case against these two parties is concluded via settlement, litigation continues against other defendants involved in the infringement proceedings.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd.
Versah LLC initiated an infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 402 420 B1. However, before the written proceedings concluded, Versah reached an out-of-court settlement with one of the defendants (Respondent 2). The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the claimant's request for partial withdrawal against this specific defendant and terminated those proceedings. This case highlights how private settlements can directly impact the trajectory and scope of UPC litigation.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a request by Grundfos Holding A/S to correct an earlier ruling against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf accepted the correction, significantly altering the scope of obligations placed on the respondent. Key changes include mandating product recalls for infringing goods and confirming that the respondent must compensate the claimant for all resulting damages. This case highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC to ensure judicial accuracy.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a request for security for costs filed by Siemens Healthineers against Hologic in an infringement and revocation action. Siemens argued that enforcing potential cost orders would be unduly burdensome due to Hologic's US domicile, citing lack of international judgment recognition treaties. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the burden lies on the applicant to prove undue burden with specific evidence regarding foreign law application. This ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required for security for costs applications in UPC proceedings.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS
In a case involving Roche and Tandem Diabetes Care against Rubin Medical, the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued an important procedural order concerning trade secret protection. The court successfully granted the request to classify specific documents as confidential under Article 58 EPC. This ruling sets strict boundaries on who can access sensitive information during the ongoing infringement proceedings, emphasizing the importance of confidentiality protocols in high-stakes biotech litigation.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
In a preliminary procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted a strict confidentiality order protecting financial information submitted by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. The court found that the Defendant failed to prove the public availability of this sensitive data, justifying the protection under UPCA rules. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to safeguarding proprietary business information during litigation.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision addresses a cost determination procedure following an infringement lawsuit and counterclaim for revocation involving EP 3 375 337 B1. The court found in favor of the claimant, Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, upholding the costs awarded despite the defendant's arguments that the fees were excessive given the limited scope of the alleged infringement. The ruling reinforces the standard requiring a substantive defense against cost objections.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement and revocation dispute concerning the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab (Repatha®). While the case involved detailed arguments regarding second medical use claims, the court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The ruling served to clarify procedural aspects of patent litigation within the UPC, particularly emphasizing that pleading ignorance is not recognized under the Rules of Procedure.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Grundfos Holding A/S sued Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. for infringing its patent covering a specialized heating circulation pump unit with electronic switching capabilities. The court found infringement, allowing Grundfos to pursue an injunction and damages against the respondent's sales in Germany, France, and Italy. However, the defendant's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed, highlighting the strict procedural hurdles required for introducing new prior art during litigation.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a complex infringement and revocation action involving Ona Patents SL against Apple Inc., the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a critical Procedural Order on May 6, 2025. The ruling focused not on the merits of the patent dispute but on establishing strict confidentiality protocols for sensitive information submitted during the proceedings. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for managing trade secrets and proprietary data within high-stakes litigation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc.
In this UPC infringement action, 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience, the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a detailed procedural order (UPC_CFI_140/2024). The order sets the stage for the oral hearing, establishing strict time limits for initial arguments and requiring both parties to submit preparatory materials, including English translations of their claims and preliminary cost estimates. This decision highlights the rigorous procedural management inherent in UPC litigation.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd.
In a significant procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber addressed the complex litigation involving Evac Oy and multiple defendants regarding vacuum drainage equipment patents. The court formally confirmed a settlement reached between the claimant and three of the five respondents (Respondents 4-6). Crucially, the proceedings against the remaining primary defendants (1, 2, and 3) were allowed to continue, indicating that the core infringement dispute remains active.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC provisional measures case, Aesculap AG sought interim relief against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding EP 2 892 442 B1. Although the core dispute is ongoing, the respondent challenged the patent's validity (novelty and inventive step). The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled that given the technical complexity and the challenge to validity, it was necessary to appoint an additional technically qualified judge to assist the panel early in the proceedings.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company Limited / The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Disney and InterDigital VC Holdings. The Defendants successfully argued for changing the court's language from German to English, aligning with the patent grant language. The Court upheld this request, citing principles that prioritize the defendant's position when balancing interests are equal, underscoring the practical importance of business context in UPC procedural matters.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order in the UPC infringement action between 10x Genomics and Curio Bioscience addresses the availability of technical samples for inspection. The Court noted the Defendant's willingness to provide samples but pointed out that the timing was late, as no reasons were provided after written proceedings closed. The matter is now pending a decision by the Panel during the oral hearing.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Henle Baumaschinentechnik GmbH
In a case involving infringement and revocation of EP 3 770 330 B1, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted an extension of deadlines for the claimant. The court recognized that the late provision of evidence by the defendant constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the procedural relief. This decision underscores the UPC's willingness to manage complex litigation timelines when procedural fairness is at stake.
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 a procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed the bifurcation issue in the case between Maxeon Solar and several defendants. The court opted to proceed with a joint hearing, combining the infringement action against EP 3 065 184 B1 and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision is significant as it prioritizes judicial efficiency and ensures consistency by having both validity and infringement assessed under a single, uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for protection of trade secrets between CUP&CINO and ALPINA Coffee Systems. The court successfully classified specific financial data submitted by the respondent as confidential business information under Article 58 EPC. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting sensitive commercial data during litigation, ensuring that proprietary information remains restricted to authorized parties.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In a procedural ruling concerning cost assessment within an ongoing UPC action, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted the claimant, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH, protection for its trade secrets. The court found that information regarding billed work and hourly rates constituted confidential business information. This decision reinforces the ability of parties to safeguard sensitive commercial data during litigation under the UPC framework.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a costs determination application following an infringement and revocation proceedings involving Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH and Mammut Sports Group. The court analyzed the reasonableness of the respondent's cost claims, specifically scrutinizing how they calculated the relevant claim value for fee assessment. Ultimately, the court partially granted the claimant's request, limiting the recoverable costs to 4,866.11 EUR due to methodological errors in the respondents' calculation.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a complex costs determination application arising from an infringement and revocation action concerning avalanche search devices. The court provided crucial guidance on the separability of costs, confirming that expenses incurred during preliminary injunction proceedings are distinct and separately reimbursable, even if they precede the main infringement suit. This ruling clarifies how cost ceilings apply across different procedural stages within the UPC framework, offering significant clarity for practitioners managing multi-stage litigation.
Atlas Global Techonologies GmbH v.TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE.LTD.
Atlas Global Techonologies GmbH initiated infringement and revocation proceedings against TP-Link entities concerning EP 3 186 937. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber issued an order suspending the entire case based on a mutual agreement reached by all parties involved in the litigation. This suspension is a common procedural mechanism used to allow parties time for negotiation or settlement outside of court, effectively pausing the legal battle.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA; Vantiva Technologies SAS; Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, the infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 353 901 were suspended. Atlas Global Technologies GmbH (Claimant) and Vantiva entities (Respondents) mutually agreed to this suspension. This decision highlights the parties' ability to manage complex UPC litigation through procedural agreements.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-Link Deutschland GmbH
In a procedural development concerning the patent EP 3 353 901, Atlas Global Technologies GmbH initiated proceedings against TP-Link entities. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order suspending the case. This suspension was reached by mutual agreement of all parties involved in the infringement and revocation actions. This highlights how strategic agreements can pause high-stakes UPC litigation.
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.