Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
250 cases · page 6 of 9
Showing 151–179Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG
This UPC decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning evidence preservation and inspection related to the patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which covers specialized saw wires used in semiconductor manufacturing. The claimant sought to inspect facilities of Siltronic AG (and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG) to gather evidence regarding the use of patented saw wire types. Despite acknowledging the general principles of evidence preservation, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately rejected the application for an inspection and evidence-gathering order.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
Ona Patents SL initiated infringement proceedings against Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, which included a counterclaim for revocation. In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division decided to proceed with a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. This decision streamlines the process by ensuring that validity and infringement are assessed under a single, uniform interpretation of the patent by the same judicial panel.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
In a recent procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate the infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL against Google entities with the counterclaim for revocation. This strategic decision was made at the request and consent of both parties. By combining these two complex issues into one hearing, the court aims to enhance efficiency and ensure that any determination of patent validity is applied uniformly when assessing infringement.
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 concerning security of legal costs, the UPC addressed concerns raised by several defendants regarding the financial stability of the claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants' request for security, setting the required amount at EUR 100,000. This decision underscores the court's power to manage procedural risks and ensure that patent holders can bear the costs associated with litigation.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a costs determination application filed by the defendants following a complex infringement and revocation proceeding. Although the initial lawsuit resulted in the patent being declared invalid in certain territories, the defendants subsequently sought to recover substantial legal costs from the claimant. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected this claim, finding that the application was submitted too late according to the strict one-month deadline set out in the Rules of Procedure.
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 concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, the UPC addressed a request by several defendants to extend the confidentiality of their financial data (revenue and sales figures). The court partially granted this request, maintaining secrecy for specific green-shaded numbers in existing submissions. However, it firmly rejected the defendants' attempt to make the protection vague and applicable to all future filings, setting a clear boundary on how trade secret protections can be extended during litigation.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer SA, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer Oy, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer B.V., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Pfizer Service Company S.r.l.
In a case involving GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and various Pfizer entities, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the Claimant to withdraw its patent infringement action against the Defendants. This decision followed the mutual agreement of both parties to terminate the proceedings. Crucially, the court also ruled to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the substantial court fees paid during the litigation. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can lead to swift resolution in UPC actions.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This Düsseldorf Local Division decision addresses complex issues in a patent infringement and revocation case involving vehicle frames made from foam resin. The court provided key guidance on interpreting 'product-by-process' claims, emphasizing that the technical properties of the resulting product are paramount to claim scope. Additionally, the ruling clarifies the jurisdictional approach to compensation claims, noting that while the UPC can handle financial damages, claimants must address varying national requirements for such compensation.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a procedural application concerning public access to court documents in the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_135/2024). The claimant sought extensive access to all filed exhibits and pleadings. The Court partially granted this request, allowing access to specific redacted versions of key documents while rejecting broader requests for further redaction or disclosure.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG seeking to correct errors in a prior judgment. The claimant successfully argued for the removal of specific phrasing ('direkt oder indirekt') from several claims due to clerical mistakes made during drafting. However, the request to formally add all participating counsel was denied, setting clear boundaries on what constitutes an 'obvious inaccuracy' under UPC procedural rules.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an urgent inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. ahead of a main infringement lawsuit concerning its patent on surface treatment processes. The claimant argued that the respondent's specialized sales channels made it nearly impossible to obtain products for testing, thus preventing verification of alleged infringements. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing procedural requirements and setting strict deadlines for filing the main action.
Nichia Corporation v.Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH
This UPC decision confirms the settlement reached between Nichia Corporation and Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH regarding infringement of EP 2 323 178 B1. Although the case was settled, the court provided specific procedural rulings, including setting the value of the infringement claim at EUR 1 million. The ruling also mandated a partial refund of court fees for the claimant, highlighting the procedural benefits available when disputes are resolved amicably.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This UPC decision confirms the termination of a patent infringement and revocation counterclaim between Hand Held Products, Inc. and Scandit AG following an out-of-court settlement. The claimant successfully withdrew its infringement suit, while the respondents consented to dropping their revocation counterclaim. Crucially, the court formalized the cost allocation, ordering both parties to receive a 60% refund of their respective legal fees.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
In this UPC case involving packaging technology, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued an order setting out the procedural path forward for both infringement and revocation claims. The court decided to combine the two actions into a single proceeding, citing efficiency and the benefit of a unified interpretation by the same judicial panel. This decision streamlines complex patent litigation, allowing claimants and defendants to address validity and infringement simultaneously.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion regarding simultaneous interpretation during oral hearings in an infringement case involving diabetes technology. The respondents, who were non-German speakers, requested court-ordered translation to ensure their right to be heard given the complexity of the technical and legal issues. The Local Division acknowledged the need for accessibility but ultimately denied the request that the costs be covered by the proceedings. This ruling reinforces the principle that while procedural fairness is paramount, the financial burden of specialized services like simultaneous interpretation generally rests with the requesting party unless explicitly mandated otherwise.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement and revocation action against CUPOWER for allegedly infringing its Boost-PFC circuit patent (EP 2 011 218 B1) used in LED drivers. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision underscores the high bar required to prove infringement or successfully challenge a granted European patent within the unified system.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer SA, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer Oy, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer B.V., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Pfizer Service Company S.r.l.
In this complex pharmaceutical patent dispute, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a dual action involving infringement and revocation. Following unanimous requests from all parties, the Court opted to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division, citing procedural efficiency as a key factor. Crucially, however, the Local Division decided to proceed with the main infringement action itself. Furthermore, the Defendants were granted a necessary one-month extension to ensure they could address all issues related to the infringement proceedings.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses procedural motions regarding the exchange of further written pleadings in a patent infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 755 901 B1. The court ruled against both the claimant (Hartmann Packaging A/S) and the respondents (Omni-Pac GmbH). The ruling underscores strict adherence to the UPC's procedural timetable, requiring parties to utilize their allotted submissions or formally request additional pleadings under R. 36 VerfO with strong justification.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court rejected a request by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. to introduce evidence regarding a Chinese patent's invalidation decision into the UPC proceedings. The court found that the late submission and failure to provide the document in German prejudiced the preparation for the upcoming oral hearing. This case highlights the strict procedural requirements of the UPC, emphasizing timely submissions and adherence to the official language of the proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this procedural order concerning enforcement security, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. The Applicant had initially deposited EUR 2 million to secure a preliminary injunction but subsequently obtained and provided an equivalent bank guarantee. The Court found that the Applicant had a legitimate interest in exchanging the deposit for the bank guarantee due to logistical and economic reasons. Consequently, the Court ordered the repayment of the original security deposit.
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 EP 3 065 184 B1, the UPC Local Division addressed a request for an extension of time periods. The Court balanced the principle of strict adherence to statutory deadlines against practical realities, specifically noting mutual holiday absences in Europe and China. Although the main request for three weeks was denied, the court granted a one-week extension to ensure procedural fairness across all defendants involved in the infringement action.
Per Aarsleff A/S v.IMS Robotics GmbH and IMS Robotics Nordic A/S
In a procedural decision concerning EP 2 129 956, the Unified Patent Court allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This case highlights how UPC proceedings can be concluded amicably through mutual consent, even when complex actions are involved. Practitioners should note that while the main dispute was dropped, the court still managed the procedural aspects, including setting the value in dispute and ordering partial reimbursement of court fees.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
In a procedural order issued on February 12, 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC established detailed confidentiality rules for sensitive information exchanged between Ona Patents SL and Apple Inc. The ruling specifically classified certain unredacted documents as confidential under Article 58 UPCA. This decision highlights the court's proactive role in protecting trade secrets during high-stakes patent litigation involving major tech players.
Dolby International AB v.ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
In a procedural ruling in Düsseldorf, the UPC court allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Dolby International AB withdrew its infringement lawsuit against ASUS and related entities, while the defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 490 258 B1. The decision confirmed the termination of all proceedings but also addressed the allocation of costs, granting partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides based on mutual agreement.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS FRANCE Société à responsabilité limitée
Dolby International AB initiated an infringement lawsuit against several ASUS entities concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. Before the proceedings concluded, both parties reached an out-of-court settlement and agreed to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims. The Düsseldorf Local Division formally accepted these withdrawals, terminating the case while allocating specific costs and ordering partial reimbursement of court fees.
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 concerning confidential information in an infringement and revocation action, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed access rights to sensitive financial data. The Court clarified that parties must provide specific, concrete reasons when objecting to or requesting access to confidential information. It ultimately granted access to certain independent consultants involved in patent matters while rejecting a request for another party, emphasizing the strict adherence required under confidentiality rules.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
In a significant decision concerning lithographic printing technology, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf revoked EP 3 594 009 B1 following a counterclaim for revocation. The court also dismissed the infringement action brought by Fujifilm against Kodak entities. This case highlights the critical interplay between jurisdiction, claim construction principles (favoring broad interpretation), and the strict requirements for amending claims under Art. 123(2) EPC. For patent practitioners, this decision underscores that even if an infringement suit is filed, a successful revocation counterclaim can lead to complete invalidation of the patent.
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 procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed an application for rectification concerning EP 3 065 184 B1. The court dismissed the request, finding that the original decision was accurate and did not contain any clerical mistakes or 'obvious slips.' This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of Rule 353 RoP regarding when a party can seek to amend a judicial order.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH initiated proceedings against Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH regarding infringement of its patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which covers specialized avalanche rescue transceivers (LVS). The Düsseldorf Local Chamber issued a detailed decision addressing both the infringement claims and the counterclaim for revocation. Key rulings clarified principles of indirect infringement when user activation is required and established stringent criteria for implementing product destruction or recall measures to ensure permanent cessation of infringement.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision involves a complex dispute over an avalanche rescue device (LVS) protected by EP 3 466 498 B1. The claimant sued the defendants for infringement while simultaneously challenging the patent's validity in Switzerland. The court issued detailed injunctions, establishing specific legal principles regarding indirect infringement when user activation is required and setting high standards for market removal measures like destruction. This case highlights the UPC's ability to handle combined actions of infringement and revocation.
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.