Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
250 cases · page 7 of 9
Showing 181–209Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In the case of Valeo Electrification v. Magna PT entities, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Local Division formally closed proceedings after both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants subsequently withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This decision highlights the importance of party autonomy in UPC litigation, allowing cases to be terminated amicably even when complex patent disputes are involved.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In a procedural decision concerning EP 3 320 604 B1, the UPC Local Division allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Valeo Electrification withdrew its patent infringement action against Magna entities, while the Defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and a license. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to the closure of complex IP litigation without a substantive ruling on validity or infringement.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories (and associated entities)
This UPC decision in Düsseldorf concerns the mutual withdrawal of a patent infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against various Abbott entities, alongside a corresponding counterclaim for revocation. The parties agreed to terminate all proceedings, including the application to amend the patent in suit. While the core dispute was resolved through consent, the court issued specific orders regarding the reimbursement of court fees, setting the value in dispute at EUR 4 million each.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a request for security of legal costs concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled in favor of the Defendants (Apple group). The court found that due to the Claimant's limited financial disclosure and minimal share capital, there was a legitimate concern regarding the recoverability of potential cost orders. Consequently, the Claimant was ordered to provide security amounting to EUR 500,000.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a request for security of legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled against Ona Patents SL. The court found that despite the Claimant's arguments regarding its solvency, it failed to provide sufficient financial evidence to convince the court. Consequently, the court ordered Ona Patents SL to deposit EUR 500,000 as security for the Defendants' potential legal costs. This decision highlights the stringent requirements placed on NPEs seeking enforcement in UPC proceedings.
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 addresses a request for protection of confidential information during an infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 065 184 B1. The Court accepted the defendants' requests to keep specific financial data—related to revenue, profit, and sales figures—confidential as trade secrets. This decision reinforces the practical application of confidentiality rules within UPC proceedings, allowing for protection even when strict procedural timing requirements are not met.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This UPC Procedural Order addressed the critical issue of protecting confidential information within a complex infringement and revocation action involving major solar energy players. The Court carefully balanced the need for trade secret protection against the public nature of some submitted data. While granting confidentiality to protect sensitive financial metrics, the court denied requests to shield technical details already disclosed in parallel national proceedings, setting important boundaries for disclosure in UPC litigation.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request by Valeo Electrification to extend filing deadlines in an infringement and revocation action against Magna. The Court rejected the extension request, confirming that statutory time limits are sufficient unless exceptional circumstances are proven. This decision reinforces the strict adherence to procedural timelines within the UPC framework.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finland Oy, HP Italy S.r.l., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD
In a procedural ruling concerning the dispute over EP 3 490 258 B1, Dolby International AB withdrew its infringement claim against various HP entities. Concurrently, the defendants successfully had their counterclaim for revocation withdrawn. The court formally terminated both proceedings based on the mutual agreement of the parties. This case highlights how strategic settlement and procedural agreements can lead to the early termination of complex UPC litigation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a request for security of legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ordered Curio Bioscience Inc. to provide EUR 200,000 in security to 10x Genomics, Inc. The case centered on whether a claimant could successfully petition for cost security against a defendant under the UPCA framework. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of 10x Genomics, acknowledging the voluntary nature of litigation while balancing this with procedural fairness.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request for further submissions in an ongoing infringement action concerning EP 3 594 009 B1. The Court ruled that because the Defendants failed to provide a reasoned request under Rule 36 RoP, their recent written brief would be disregarded. This decision keeps the case moving forward procedurally while deferring judgment on the merits of the patent infringement claim.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request from Fujifilm Corporation for simultaneous interpretation during oral proceedings, citing concerns over language barriers. The court acknowledged that providing interpretation was necessary to uphold the principle of fair trial and equality of arms. However, it firmly rejected the claim that these costs should be covered by the Court, stating that while the Claimant could hire an interpreter at its own expense, the UPC cannot generally provide services in all languages.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the protection of confidential information within a running infringement case (UPC_CFI_460/2024). The Court granted the Claimant's request to classify specific exhibits from the Defendants' Statement of Defence as confidential. This ruling is crucial for managing sensitive trade secrets in parallel proceedings, allowing litigation to proceed while maintaining strict control over proprietary data.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application by Fujifilm Corporation seeking to overturn a previous decision that denied them permission for a further written submission. The dispute centered on the right of prior use defense raised by Kodak entities. The UPC Panel dismissed the request, emphasizing that strict adherence to procedural timelines is crucial in complex patent litigation. This ruling reinforces the principle that parties must manage their filing deadlines carefully to avoid unnecessary delays in proceedings.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., etc.)
In a procedural order concerning EP 4 026 488, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf decided to proceed with a joint hearing of the infringement action brought by DexCom against Abbott and its subsidiaries, alongside the counterclaim for revocation. This decision prioritizes efficiency, ensuring that both validity and infringement are assessed under a single, uniform interpretation by the same judicial panel. The court also mandated the allocation of a technically qualified judge (TQJ) to manage the case effectively.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This UPC CFI case involved an application for rectification filed by Magna against Valeo following a previous injunction order concerning electric motor generators and gearbox assemblies used in BMW vehicles. Magna sought to amend the scope of the permitted use exceptions and clarify the geographical reach of related litigation actions. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected these requests, confirming that the original Order was legally sound and contained no clerical errors or obvious slips.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott GmbH, etc.)
In a procedural order concerning the dispute between DexCom, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories regarding EP 4 026 488, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted an extension of time for filing key pleadings. Although the Defendants did not consent to the delay, the Court found that granting the extension was justified on grounds of fairness and equity. This order highlights the procedural flexibility available within the UPC framework when balancing strict timelines against the practical needs of complex litigation.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application for rectification filed by Magna against Valeo following a prior injunction concerning electric motor generators and related parts used in BMW vehicles. Magna sought to amend the scope of the permitted use exceptions and clarify the geographical reach of a parallel vindication action. The Court ultimately dismissed these requests, upholding the original order's wording and finding that no 'obvious slip' or clerical error existed.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL
In this provisional measures case concerning an automotive motor patent (EP 3 320 604 B1), the UPC Local Division granted a preliminary injunction to Valeo Electrification against Magna PT and its affiliates. The injunction was conditional, allowing the Defendants to continue supplying specific models to their customer BMW if they provided a security deposit of €500,000. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach in balancing patent holder rights with the operational needs of defendants facing existing supply chain commitments.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In a significant ruling for the carbonation device market, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf found that SodaStream Industries Ltd. successfully proved infringement against Aarke AB regarding their respective carbonator products. The court granted an interim damages award of EUR 250,000 and issued a cease and desist order based on Claim 1 of EP 1 793 917. This decision reinforces the importance of precise claim construction under Art. 69 EPC while providing immediate relief to the patent holder.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In this provisional measures case, Valeo Electrification sought an injunction against Magna entities regarding the rotary electric machine patent EP 3 320 602 B1. The UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf partially granted the application, allowing the defendants to continue their existing supply obligations to BMW provided they furnish a security deposit of EUR 500,000 by November 21, 2024. This decision highlights the court's balancing act between protecting the patent holder's rights and ensuring business continuity for the defendant.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request by Fujifilm Corporation to submit further written observations regarding the private prior use defense raised by Kodak entities. The Court ultimately rejected the request, citing concerns over unnecessary delay and the timing of the submission relative to other proceedings. This decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements within the UPC, emphasizing that requests for additional pleadings must be carefully weighed against the overall efficiency and timeline of the litigation.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought permission to introduce new evidence regarding the respondent's offering of a 'Barryvox S' device with voice control. The court ultimately rejected this request. While existing interim measures protect against infringement by the 'Barryvox S2', the introduction of the 'Barryvox S' requires careful procedural handling, balancing the claimant's need for information against the respondents' right to be heard within the limited time frame.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finland Oy, HP Italy S.r.l., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD
In a procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC suspended the complex infringement and revocation proceedings involving Dolby International AB against various HP entities regarding EP 3 490 258 B1. The suspension was granted upon the mutual request of all parties involved in the litigation. This decision highlights how parties can utilize procedural mechanisms within the UPC to pause active disputes, potentially allowing for strategic reassessment or negotiation before a full hearing.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed a request for deadline extensions filed by CAN Srl Airxcel Europe in an infringement case concerning EP 1 788 320 B1. The court strictly rejected both the preliminary opposition and statement of defense extension requests. The decision underscores the UPC's commitment to timely proceedings, requiring parties to meet deadlines unless a compelling exception is demonstrated.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 1793917), the defendant Aarke AB sought to adjourn the oral hearing, citing an outstanding appeal regarding a request for security for costs. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected this request. The court clarified that appeals related to certain orders do not automatically halt main proceedings, especially when the order in question (security for costs) does not fall under the specific exceptions of Art. 74 (3) UPCA.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH; expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. successfully sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringing its patent covering light emitting diodes (LEDs). The Düsseldorf Local Chamber found infringement, leading to an injunction and damages award against the defendants. Crucially, despite the joint action, the court dismissed the counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent, thereby upholding the validity of EP 3 926 698 B1. This decision reinforces the enforcement power of the UPC while clarifying procedural rules regarding multi-defendant litigation.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
In a significant decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC declared European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1 invalid across key EU territories (Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands). This revocation was achieved through a counterclaim brought by the defendants. Although the patent was invalidated, the court subsequently dismissed the original infringement lawsuit filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The ruling highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where successful revocation does not automatically guarantee success in the initial infringement claim.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG
In a complex infringement and revocation case concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order. The defendants sought to delay proceedings by requesting time to respond to an appellate court's decision. The Court rejected this motion, indicating that the main substantive proceedings are moving forward without further delays based on the appeal ruling. This highlights the strict procedural management of UPC cases.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB initiated an infringement lawsuit against Optoma Corporation and its subsidiaries regarding EP 3 605 534. However, before a substantive ruling could be made, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf formally approved the withdrawal of the claim. This case highlights how settlements can resolve complex patent disputes within the UPC framework, allowing for procedural closure while addressing financial aspects like court fee reimbursement.
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.