Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
282 cases · page 8 of 10
Showing 211–239Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1 regarding the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the Rejoinder and specific exhibits as confidential and restricted access to designated representatives of the Applicant, Valeo Electrification. The court denied the Applicant's request to grant access to an additional lawyer, Thierry Lautier, who was not actively involved in the proceedings.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court decided, pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by Grundfos Holding A/S and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. jointly before the same panel.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB (EP 1 793 917)
This case concerns a panel review of an order dismissing a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Defendant, Aarke AB, sought security of EUR 400,000, arguing that enforcement of a UPC cost order in Israel would be impossible or unduly burdensome due to the reciprocity requirement under Israeli law. The panel dismissed the application for review, finding that the Claimant (part of the PepsiCo group) was financially capable of complying with a cost order and that no sufficient facts supported a likelihood of unenforceability, while granting leave to appeal.
Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft. v.Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc.
Order
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Düsseldorf Local Chamber rejected the applicant's request for provisional measures (interim injunction) against the respondents regarding European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1, which covers an optical fiber for treating venous diseases. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate the substantive necessity of interim measures, as its arguments regarding lost market share and customer loyalty were speculative and did not establish that monetary compensation would be insufficient. The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, and appeal was permitted.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification (Procedural Application concerning Allocation of Technically Qualified Judge)
This procedural order concerns an application by the Magna entities (defendants in the main proceedings) for a review of the allocation of a technically qualified judge (TQJ) in proceedings where Valeo Electrification had sought provisional measures based on EP 3 320 604 B1. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, holding that parties cannot suggest the technical background of an allocated judge, and the only permissible ground for objecting to a judge is partiality under Article 7.4 UPCA.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The defendants (Apple entities) sought to classify certain information as confidential trade secrets under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the request, holding that information regarding profit margins, technical functionalities of the accused products, and the identities of employees with access to such information qualifies as confidential, including negative facts stating that certain products do not support certain functionalities.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH and Others v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. (Language of Proceedings Order)
Seven defendants in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Düsseldorf applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP3065184 was granted. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., objected. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that the application was admissible despite being lodged in English, and that the balance of interests favored the defendants since both parties are international companies with significant internal resources, making the defendants' position decisive.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, addressing the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the Defendants' (Magna entities) request to classify certain information contained in their Objection and related exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited group of the Applicant's (Valeo Electrification) representatives. The court rejected Valeo's objection that the same information had already been publicly disclosed in Stuttgart Regional Court proceedings in 2023, finding that the information in question was different.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning European Patent EP 3 339 920 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, confirmed the parties' cost agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 697 391 B1. The Defendant sought a confidentiality order restricting access to unredacted versions of its statement of defence and confidential exhibits, while the Claimant sought to extend access to its legal representatives and three named employees. The Court granted access to the Claimant's named representatives and their teams, along with three employees, finding that the Defendant had not objected to the extension and had not provided reasons to limit access further.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 402 415 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the claimant withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, confirmed the parties' cost agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to the claimant.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
The defendant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court sought security for costs of EUR 400,000, arguing that the Israeli claimant's foreign domicile created enforcement risks and that the claimant initiated proceedings to cause material harm. The claimant, part of the PepsiCo group, opposed the request, citing its financial strength and the applicability of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure. The court dismissed the request, holding that the mere location of the claimant's registered office in Israel and unsubstantiated doubts about compliance with a future cost decision did not justify ordering security for costs.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH for the release of a EUR 500,000 security deposit it had lodged with the Unified Patent Court in connection with ex parte interim measures granted against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 B1. After initially depositing the security to enable prompt enforcement, Ortovox subsequently obtained and provided a bank guarantee and sought release of the deposited amount. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the Registrar to release the deposited security, subject to the expiry of the respondents' right to seek review.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 926 698 B1. The claimant sought review of the judge-rapporteur's decision to postpone ruling on the admission of four additional auxiliary requests filed under Rule 30.2 RoP. The court upheld the procedural order, holding that Rule 30.2 RoP leaves the timing of the admission decision to the court's discretion, and that the two-month response period under Rule 32.1 RoP does not automatically apply to later amendment applications under Rule 30.2 RoP.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns EP 3 594 009 B1, where FUJIFILM (Claimant) sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to change its conditional application to amend the patent, originally limited to the German designation, to extend to all designations. The Court rejected the application under Rule 263 RoP but reclassified the amended set of requests as a subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP and allowed it, while rejecting the Defendants' alternative request for an extension of time limits.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 490 258 B1, an HEVC-essential patent. Access Advance LLC, which had intervened on the plaintiff's side to manage the patent pool containing Dolby's HEVC-essential portfolio, applied for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP regarding license agreements it submitted. The court granted the application, holding that an intervener is treated as a party under R. 315.4 RoP and may therefore request confidential treatment of information in its submissions.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG and Others
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, in which the applicant Valeo Electrification sought leave to amend its application for provisional measures by deleting the word 'alternatively' from its claim, thereby converting an alternative claim into a main claim. The court granted leave, holding that Rule 263 RoP applies to provisional measure proceedings and that the amendment constituted an unconditional limitation under R. 263.3 RoP that did not unduly prejudice the defendants.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed whether Access Advance LLC, which intervened on the claimant's side as the administrator of the patent pool into which Dolby's HEVC-essential patents were contributed, should have access to confidential information filed by the defendants. The court held that an intervener is treated as a party and is entitled to have at least one natural person included in the circle of authorized recipients of confidential information.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 926 698 B1. The Korean plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., requested court-ordered simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing (scheduled for September 5, 2024) from German into English, arguing that its Korean representatives did not speak German. The court denied the request, holding that since Germany had designated English as an additional procedural language at the Düsseldorf Local Chamber, the plaintiff could have chosen English as the procedural language and avoided the need for interpretation altogether. The plaintiff was instead permitted to hire its own interpreter at its own expense.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1, which protects a sanitary tub installation with C-shaped rim and plastic foam profile strips. The court found that the defendant infringed the patent in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands through its shower tray products and profile strip sets, ordering injunctive relief, recall, removal from distribution channels, information disclosure, and provisional damages of EUR 10,000. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful, with the patent being maintained in amended form, resulting in a 50/50 cost split on the counterclaim and 15/85 split on the infringement claim.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned an application for provisional measures by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 393 417 B1, directed against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The parties reached a settlement during the oral hearing, which the court confirmed pursuant to Rule 365.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The court also ordered a 20% refund of court fees to the Applicant and set the value of the application at 4,000,000 EUR.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others (UPC_CFI_457/2023)
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 490 258 B1, a HEVC-essential patent held by Dolby International AB and pooled through Access Advance LLC. The court addressed the plaintiff's request to extend the deadlines for filing its reply to the defendants' statement of defense and its defense to the counterclaim for revocation, which had been impacted by a confidentiality protection request (R. 262A RoP) filed by the defendants regarding their FRAND defense and license negotiations with Access Advance. The court extended both deadlines uniformly to September 1, 2024, finding that the plaintiff needed time to consult with Access Advance employees who were initially excluded from access to the confidential filings.
Dolby International AB v.HP PPS Sverige AB and Others
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court allowed Access Advance LLC to intervene as an intervener (Streithelferin) on the side of the plaintiff Dolby International AB in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The court held that Access Advance, as the administrator of the patent pool into which Dolby had contributed the patent-in-suit and which handles FRAND licensing of Dolby's HEVC portfolio, had a direct and present legal interest in the outcome, particularly because the HP defendants had raised a FRAND defense based on alleged inadequacies of Access Advance's license offers.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff Dolby International AB sought a determination that the time limits for filing its reply to the statement of defense and its response to the counterclaim for revocation began running on May 28, 2024, when it was granted access to confidential information, or alternatively, an extension of those deadlines to July 28, 2024. The court extended both deadlines to July 28, 2024, finding that the initial restriction of access to confidential passages of the defendants' pleadings constituted an exceptional case justifying an extension, but rejected the request to deem the time limits as having started on May 28, 2024.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd & CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 2 011 218 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ and Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG and the counterclaim for revocation filed by the CUPOWER defendants together in a single proceeding. The decision was based on efficiency considerations, the moderate complexity of the technology, and the need for early assignment of a technically qualified judge.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL (Application to Change Language of Proceedings)
Apple entities (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings from German to English before the Local Division Düsseldorf of the UPC Court of First Instance. The patent in suit, EP 2263098, was granted in English. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, finding that the balance of interests favored retaining German as the language of proceedings, given that two of the five Apple defendants are based in Germany, Ona Patents is a small Spanish start-up with limited resources, and parallel proceedings between the same parties were already being conducted in German before the Munich regional court.
Google Ireland Ltd and Google Commerce Ltd v.Ona Patents SL (Application to Change Language of Proceedings)
Google Ireland Ltd and Google Commerce Ltd (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings before the Local Division Düsseldorf from German to English, the language in which European Patent EP 2263098 was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, finding that while English is commonly used in the relevant field of technology, the balancing of interests weighed against changing the language given Ona Patents' specific circumstances, including its contact person's fluency in German and the existence of parallel proceedings in German before the Regional Court of Munich.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order permitting service of the statement of claim on the defendant at a trade fair stand in Amsterdam. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, a trade fair stand can constitute a temporary place of business where service may be effected, provided that deliveries are also being promoted there, which is typically the case.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Others v.Headwater Research LLC (Language of Proceedings Order)
The President of the UPC Court of First Instance granted Samsung's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC concerning EP3110069. The Court found that the use of German was more detrimental to Samsung, which did not choose the language and needed to organize its defence in English, while adopting English would not cause inconvenience to Headwater, a US company that already uses English in its communications and preparatory work.
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.