Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
292 cases · page 7 of 10
Showing 181–209Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The court decided, with the consent of both parties, to hear the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was based on considerations of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided together by the same panel for a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Libra Energy B.V., Memodo GmbH, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. Defendants 1, 2, and 4 (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) sought to extend a prior confidentiality order to cover additional green-shaded financial information in their Rejoinder and Exhibit HL 41. The court granted the extension for the specific identified information but rejected the broader request to extend confidentiality to all future submissions as too vague and indeterminate.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Respondent
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA filed a patent infringement action against 14 Pfizer entities concerning European Patent EP 4 183 412 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and did not object to a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 201,600) to the Claimant.
Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109 B1, which is in force in Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, and Slovenia. The plaintiffs, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich (along with third-party counterdefendant Alexander Christ), allege that the defendant, Knaus Tabbert AG, infringes the patent. The decision addresses two key legal questions: the interpretation of product-by-process claims and the jurisdiction over financial compensation claims for the use of a published European patent application.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'directly or indirectly' in claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach in the case heading. The court partially granted the application, correcting the clerical error regarding the struck-through phrase but rejecting the request to add another attorney as it did not constitute an obvious inaccuracy.
Epson Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534, which is essential for the Opus Audio Codec. The main infringement proceedings are brought by Dolby International AB against Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş regarding televisions and electronic devices running Android TV version 5.0 or later. The applicant, Epson Deutschland GmbH, is a defendant in a parallel infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division concerning projectors and Android TV devices, and seeks public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
Nichia Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerned an infringement action brought by Nichia Corporation against Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH regarding European Patent EP 2 323 178 B1. The parties settled the dispute during the written procedure, and the court confirmed the settlement pursuant to its procedural rules. The court ordered partial reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff, amounting to 9,000 EUR, and set the dispute value at 1,000,000 EUR.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on March 26, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1, relating to a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces. The applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, sole proprietor of the patent, had filed an application on March 25, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stands of the respondents at the Cologne trade fair (Köln Messe). The respondents include STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L., a manufacturer of machines for drag finishing and electropolishing, and a second respondent described as a specialist dealer and customer of the first respondent.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Hand Held Products, Inc. against Scandit AG and Scandit, Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 819 062, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the defendants. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement, and the defendants subsequently withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared all proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to each side, while noting that no decision on party costs was requested.
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The plaintiff Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) brought an infringement action against Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH and Omni-Pac GmbH, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together in a joint proceeding.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, filed a patent infringement action against six defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. Defendants 4 (Dinno Santé s.a.i., France) and 5 (Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., Netherlands) requested simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for April 9, 2025, citing insufficient German language skills of their attending representatives.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1 relating to a Boost Power Factor Correction (Boost-PFC) circuit, with claims 7 to 10 at issue. The plaintiff Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement action against CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court rejected new attacks on the validity of the patent that were raised for the first time during the oral hearing, holding that strategic tactics aimed at surprise effects are foreign to the Rules of Procedure.
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1 and addresses applications by both parties for leave to exchange further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in infringement proceedings. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf denied the applications, finding that the plaintiff had failed to file a proper Rule 36 application and instead improperly introduced new arguments on equivalent patent infringement in its rejoinder to the counterclaim for revocation. The court held that the decision to allow further pleadings lies in the discretion of the Rapporteur and requires substantial reasons given the goal of conducting oral hearings within one year of filing.
Pfizer SA, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer B.V., Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer Oy, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.r.l., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfize v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action filed by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer entities regarding EP 4 183 412. The Düsseldorf Local Division referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division and decided to proceed with the infringement action rather than stay it. The court also granted a one-month extension for the Defendants to file their Rejoinder, extending the deadline to 13 April 2025.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the defendant's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to file a further pleading in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant sought to introduce a January 6, 2025 decision of the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office, which fully invalidated the corresponding Chinese patent CN201480013981.1 based on the same prior art references. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf, through Presiding Judge Thomas acting as Rapporteur, denied the application, finding it was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese decision without justification, that the decision was submitted only in Chinese rather than the German procedural language, and that allowing late submission would prejudice both the court's and the plaintiff's preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
Procedural order concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in which the Local Division Düsseldorf addressed the Applicant's request to exchange a deposited enforcement security of EUR 2,000,000 with a bank guarantee. The Court found the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Registrar to repay the deposit to the Applicant, subject to the expiry of the review period.
Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing the Claimant's request under Rule 9.3 ROP for an extension of time periods. The court denied the main request for a three-week extension but granted a one-week extension, taking into account the Chinese New Year holidays affecting Defendants 1, 2, and 4's parent company in China. The relevant time limits were extended until 3 March 2025 for all Defendants to maintain harmonisation.
IMS Robotics GmbH, IMS Robotics Nordic A/S v.Respondent
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 2 129 956. The Claimant (Per Aarsleff A/S) filed a patent infringement action on 20 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 28 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties jointly sought to withdraw their respective claims and requested partial reimbursement of court fees, with no cost decision sought by either side.
Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Ona Patents SL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 12 February 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1. The order addresses an application under Rule 262A RoP to protect confidential information, classifying certain information contained in the unredacted Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defense and related exhibits as confidential, and restricting access to designated representatives of the Claimant.
ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, in which Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against four ASUS entities. Before the written procedure concluded, Dolby withdrew its infringement action following an out-of-court settlement, and the ASUS defendants sought to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. Both parties agreed that each would bear their own costs and requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The court issued its decision in accordance with the parties' jointly expressed wishes.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, in which Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against several ASUS entities. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its infringement action and the ASUS defendants to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. The court issued an order confirming the withdrawals, that each party bears its own costs, and granting a 60% partial reimbursement of the court fees paid upon filing.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court amended its prior order of 23 December 2024 to add three named individuals to the group of persons authorized to access confidential information, while rejecting the request to grant a fourth individual (Ms. [...]) separate access.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
1. If the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State (here: Germany), the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK part of the patent in suit. This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. The terms used in a
PowerDeal SRL v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for rectification under Rule 353 RoP filed in connection with infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., sought rectification of a prior order concerning the protection of confidential information. The court dismissed the application, finding no obvious slip or clerical mistake, as the unredacted version of the order correctly contained the name of a natural person of Defendant 7 (PowerDeal SRL) to whom access was granted, while only the redacted version had that name replaced with '[…]'.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The case concerned issues of direct and indirect patent infringement, novelty, inventive step, and remedies including destruction, recall, and removal from distribution channels, as well as publication of the decision.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf heard oral arguments on November 26, 2024 and issued its decision on January 14, 2025. The judgment establishes key principles regarding direct and indirect patent infringement, destruction of infringing goods, recall and removal from distribution channels, and permission to publish the decision.
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs. The Court allowed both withdrawals and declared all proceedings closed.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
DexCom, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities concerning European patent EP 4 026 488 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After the Abbott defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and conditional application to amend the patent, and the defendants in turn withdrew their counterclaim. The court allowed all withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to each party for their respective actions.
Google Ireland Limited v.Respondent
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Defendants (Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant (Ona Patents SL) lacked the financial resources to cover any potential cost order. The Court granted the request in part, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks of service of the order, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its financial position despite the Defendants presenting credible concerns.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 requested that the claimant, Ona Patents SL, provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the request well-founded, holding that the claimant, a recently founded entity with minimal share capital and no apparent financial reserves, failed to substantiate its ability to bear potential costs. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks, rejecting the defendants' request for EUR 1.012 million and a one-week deadline.
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.