Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
292 cases · page 6 of 10
Showing 151–179Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., Katun Germany GmbH, Katun Corporation, 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)
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The respondent requested simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing from German into English and permission to attend the hearing via video conference. The applicant opposed the interpretation request but did not object to the respondent arranging an interpreter at their own cost, and consented to video conference participation by the respondent's representatives.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
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. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought an action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. The court issued a decision confirming a settlement reached between the plaintiffs and defendants 1) and 2) (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, ordering confidential treatment of the settlement details and basing the cost decision on the settlement provisions.
Versah LLC v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Versah LLC regarding European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew its claims against the second defendant, Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, following an out-of-court settlement. Both parties agreed that each would bear their own costs, and the court formally approved the partial withdrawal and terminated the proceedings against that defendant.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court addressed a request by the plaintiff, Grundfos Holding A/S, for correction of obvious inaccuracies in the operative part of its earlier decision of May 8, 2025, against the defendant, Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court found the correction request admissible and well-founded, as it was filed within the one-month deadline and the defendant did not object, and accordingly corrected several paragraphs of the operative order.
Siemens Healthcare SAS, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V. v.Respondent
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.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought the action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and several healthcare distributors. The order addresses an application by Defendants 1, 2, and 6 (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS) for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure.
Greenchemicals S.R.L. v.DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC.
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.Respondent
This decision addresses cost assessment proceedings arising from a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. The court examined the defendant's objection that the plaintiff's claimed recoverable representation costs were unreasonable in amount. The court established that a party challenging the reasonableness of costs must provide substantiated factual submissions explaining why the costs are disproportionate in relation to the matter's significance, complexity, and prospects of success.
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.
1. In the case of a second medical use claim, a substance or composition within the mean- ing of Art. 54(4) EPC is used for any specific use which is not comprised in the state of the art. Such a therapeutic use can be a new indication, e.g. a disease not yet treated by the claimed substance, or an indication for a new group of patients. 2. For a finding of infringement of a second medical use claim, the alleged infringer must offer or place the medical product on the market in such way
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1 ('Kreiselpumpenaggregat' / centrifugal pump assembly). The plaintiff Grundfos Holding A/S (Denmark) sued the defendant Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (China) for infringement of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent. The decision addresses procedural questions regarding the admissibility of new prior art and new attacks on novelty and inventive step introduced by the defendant in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Inc., Apple GmbH v.Ona Patents SL, Ekahau Oy
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.Respondent
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Evac Oy regarding European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1 against six defendants, including a Chinese company, German companies, and individual persons. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the plaintiff 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. The proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 (Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, and Yong Cao) were ordered to continue, and no cost decision was required as the parties had agreed on costs.
Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) v.Aesculap AG
This procedural order concerns the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel in interim proceedings involving European Patent No. EP 2 892 442 B1. The applicant Aesculap AG sought interim measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and the respondent challenged the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found it necessary and appropriate to supplement the panel with a technically qualified judge at the interim stage, given the substantive validity challenges raised and the likelihood that such a judge would also be needed in parallel main proceedings.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.Respondent
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 (Benelux) B.V, The Walt Disney Company Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application under Rule 323 RoP by the Defendants (various Disney entities and BAMTech) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action based on European Patent EP2449782. The Claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., had initiated proceedings on 3 February 2025. The order addresses the procedural requirements for hearing all potentially affected parties before a language change can be granted, and clarifies that changing the language to the language of the patent does not conflict with the Claimant's initial choice under R. 14.1 RoP.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH, for an extension of deadlines under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement and revocation counterclaim case concerning European Patent EP 3 770 330 B1. The court granted the extension, finding that the USB stick containing key exhibits (MW 3 to 5, MW 17, and MW 27) was only served on the plaintiff on April 15, 2025, nearly two weeks after the defendant's submissions, constituting an exceptional circumstance justifying the relief. The deadlines for the plaintiff's reply to the infringement defense and response to the revocation counterclaim were extended from May 28, 2025 to June 16, 2025.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Memodo GmbH, 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
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns an application for 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 — including employee numbers, annual revenue, and annual balance sheet totals — as confidential. Access to this information on the plaintiff's side was restricted to the plaintiff's external attorney and its Chief Financial Officer.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH had sued defendants Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for patent infringement, while the defendants had filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Following a January 14, 2025 decision largely favoring the plaintiff on infringement and dismissing the invalidity counterclaim, the defendants filed a cost assessment application on February 13, 2025 seeking reimbursement of EUR 9,732.21 in costs related to the infringement proceedings.
TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-LINK ENTERPRISES FRANCE, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent No. EP 3 186 937, with Atlas Global Technologies GmbH as plaintiff and four TP-LINK entities as defendants. The proceedings combine an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. With the consent of all parties, the court stayed the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the application filed by Defendants 2 to 4 on 17 April 2025.
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 the reimbursement of costs arising from the main infringement proceedings and related interim/interlocutory proceedings between Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH as plaintiff and Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH as defendants. The decision establishes that dividing tasks among multiple lawyers and patent attorneys does not generate additional reimbursable costs, and that costs from interim proceedings are separately reimbursable with their own upper limits distinct from the main proceedings.
TP-Link Deutschland GmbH v.Atlas Global Technologies GmbH
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 353 901 in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation brought by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against four TP-LINK entities. With the consent of the parties, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered a stay of the proceedings against Defendants 2 to 4 (TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, and TP-Link Enterprises France) pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the defendants' application dated March 23, 2025.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. The plaintiff Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation against three Vantiva entities. By agreement of both parties, the court ordered the suspension of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the plaintiff's application of April 9, 2025.
Siltronic AG v.Respondent
This case concerns an order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf regarding European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, directed at a 'shaped saw wire with controlled curvature at bends.' The applicant, Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd., sought evidence preservation measures against the respondents, Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG. Respondent 1 (Siltronic AG) filed an application under Rules 197.3 and 197.4 of the Rules of Procedure seeking review of the inspection and evidence preservation order. The Chamber issued headnotes clarifying that evidence preservation orders may secure evidence of individual infringing acts, that Rule 196.1 RoP is not an exhaustive catalog of measures, and that such orders may include seizure of delivery notes and invoices where justified by the applicant's evidence preservation interest.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the bifurcation question under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, citing efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided by the same panel based on a uniform interpretation of the patent.
expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a cost assessment procedure following the revocation of European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. had sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for patent infringement, but the Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked the patent on October 10, 2024, and dismissed the infringement action. The defendants subsequently filed a cost assessment application on December 12, 2024, seeking recovery of €111,000 in total costs, comprising €100,000 for proceedings costs and €11,000 for court costs of the revocation counterclaim.
Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, in which three of the eight defendants (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. They argued that the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., was financially vulnerable as part of the loss-making Maxeon Group and was based in Singapore outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order difficult. The Court found the request admissible and largely well-founded, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 100,000 within six weeks, while granting leave to appeal.
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.