Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
250 cases · page 8 of 9
Showing 211–239Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the protection of confidential information in a case concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Court formally classified specific exhibits as confidential and issued strict access restrictions for both the Applicant (Valeo Electrification) and the Defendants (Magna group). This ruling reinforces the importance of confidentiality protocols within UPC proceedings, ensuring sensitive business information is protected during litigation.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung), the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf decided to consolidate the proceedings between Grundfos Holding A/S and Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court ruled that it would jointly examine both the infringement claim brought by Grundfos and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu. This decision aims to enhance procedural efficiency, ensuring a unified legal interpretation across both claims.
Novartis AG v.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.
In this UPC case concerning a pharmaceutical formulation patent (EP 3 805 248 B1), Novartis and Genentech sought provisional measures against the Celltrion group, alleging imminent infringement. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the application for provisional measures. The court determined that since no prior order had been issued, the requirements for interim relief under Rule 213.1 RoP were not met. This decision highlights the strict procedural prerequisites required before a party can seek urgent protective measures in UPC proceedings.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
This UPC decision addressed a request by the Defendant, Aarke AB, to impose security for legal costs against the Claimant, SodaStream Industries Ltd., in an ongoing infringement action. The Court of First Instance dismissed the panel review application, confirming that the initial judge-rapporteur correctly found no sufficient grounds (financial risk or unenforceability) to mandate security. This ruling reinforces the standard that financial capability and lack of evidence regarding bad faith are key factors when assessing cost security requests in UPC proceedings.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH; S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG sought provisional measures against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, alleging that their product infringed on EP 3 685 783 B1 related to laser fibers for vein treatment. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately denied the request for an injunction. The court found that the claimant did not meet the necessary threshold of demonstrating exceptional harm or irreparable damage required for provisional relief, despite the long-standing competition.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This procedural order addressed an application by Magna entities seeking to replace the allocated technically qualified judge (TQJ) in a provisional measures case against Valeo. Magna argued for a TQJ with specific mechanical engineering expertise. The UPC President dismissed this request, clarifying that parties are generally bound to their appointed judges and cannot object based merely on technical background unless grounds of partiality exist under Article 7.4 UPCA. This decision reinforces the strict procedural rules governing judge allocation within the Unified Patent Court.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In this UPC procedural order, Ona Patents SL successfully sought protection for confidential information against Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries. The court confirmed that sensitive data, including internal profit margins and specific technical details about product functionalities, qualifies as a trade secret under Article 58 EPC. This ruling reinforces the scope of trade secret protection in the UPC, clarifying that even negative statements or limited access to specialized knowledge can warrant confidentiality.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, aligning it with the patent's granted language. The Court found that despite initial objections regarding admissibility and local business requirements, the balance of interests favored the defendants. The ruling emphasizes that in cases involving multinational entities, the practical needs for coordination often outweigh the general rule favoring the claimant's convenience.
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 addressed a request by Valeo Electrification to lift an existing confidentiality order concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Court upheld the protection of confidential information, classifying specific documents submitted by the Defendants (Magna entities) as trade secrets under Article 58 UPCA. Consequently, the Applicant's request to remove these restrictions was dismissed, reinforcing the importance of maintaining confidentiality in UPC proceedings.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. initiated an infringement lawsuit against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning EP 3 339 920 B1. However, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently filed a request to withdraw the claim. The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal, formally ending the proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can lead to the dismissal of UPC infringement actions.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning confidentiality, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed access rights in the ongoing infringement action between 10x Genomics and Curio Bioscience. The court clarified that while prior summary proceedings orders remain relevant, specific restrictions must be set for the main case to balance the parties' needs. Access to confidential documents was strictly limited to named counsel and their actively involved teams, emphasizing the personal liability of the primary representatives.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. initiated an infringement lawsuit against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning the patent EP 2 402 415 B1. However, before a full hearing could take place, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently agreed to withdraw the claim. The Düsseldorf Local Division formally accepted this withdrawal, terminating the case.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In a costs-related proceeding, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf dismissed Aarke AB's request for security of costs against SodaStream Industries Ltd. The Court emphasized that ordering such security requires concrete evidence demonstrating either financial instability or a high risk that an UPC judgment would be unenforceable. The defendant failed to substantiate its claims regarding the claimant's willingness to comply with cost decisions, especially given the claimant's affiliation with the financially strong PepsiCo group.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH; expert klein GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court addressed a claimant's request to introduce further amendments to an existing European patent (EP 3 926 698 B1). The court rejected the motion, establishing a strict interpretation of the UPC Rules of Procedure. The decision clarifies that late-stage amendment requests do not activate the standard two-month response window for defendants, thereby preventing procedural stagnation and ensuring the timely conduct of litigation.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG / Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In this provisional measures case, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought the release of a 500,000 EUR cash deposit previously provided to secure an ex-parte injunction. The claimant successfully argued that she had replaced the cash deposit with a bank guarantee, demonstrating a legitimate interest in exchanging the security due to practical constraints. The court ruled in favor of Ortovox, ordering the release of the funds, thereby establishing clear guidelines on the flexibility of security requirements within UPC proceedings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the scope and admissibility of an application to amend European patent EP 3 594 009 B1. Fujifilm sought to expand the territorial scope of its amendment, arguing consistency with its damages claims. The Court rejected this initial request (R. 263 RoP) because the limitation lacked objective justification required for uniform decision-making under Art. 34 UPCA. However, it subsequently allowed the amended application under R. 30.2 RoP, allowing the patent to be formally amended.
Dolby International AB v.HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Finland Oy, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP Austria GmbH, HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc Danmark ApS, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Italy S.r.l., HP France SAS, HP International SARL, HP PPS Sverige AB, HP Belgium SPRL, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV
In a case concerning the infringement of an HEVC essential patent, Dolby International AB sought protection for its confidential information via an assisting party (Access Advance LLC). The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order granting this request. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms within the UPC that allow parties and assisting parties to protect trade secrets during litigation, ensuring sensitive business data remains restricted to authorized personnel.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In this procedural order concerning an application for provisional measures, the UPC granted Valeo Electrification leave to change its claim regarding EP 3 320 602 B1. The Applicant sought to unconditionally limit a previously 'alternatively' claimed feature in its injunction request. The Court ruled that R. 263 RoP applies fully to PI proceedings and found that this specific limitation was favorable to the Defendants as it narrowed the scope of the potential preliminary injunctions, thus allowing the amendment.
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
This UPC decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the protection of confidential information (Rule 262A) within an infringement case involving Dolby International AB and various HP entities. The core issue was defining the scope of access for Access Advance LLC, which had joined as a third-party intervenor in the patent pool dispute. The court granted the status of intervenor but imposed strict limitations on who could view the unredacted confidential documents.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This Düsseldorf Local Court decision addressed a request from Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. for court-provided simultaneous interpretation during oral proceedings, despite having English proficiency. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that since English was an available procedural language and the claimant deliberately chose German, they must bear the costs of their own interpreter. This ruling reinforces the principle that parties must utilize available procedural options when seeking to participate in hearings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.SIBIO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; UMEDWINGS NETHERLANDS B.V.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached in an application for provisional measures concerning EP 2 393 417 B1, which covers analyte sensors. The settlement mandates that the Defendants cease offering the infringing products in Germany, France, and the Netherlands, destroy existing stock, recall products from distribution channels, and compensate the Applicant for all damages on the merits. This case highlights how parties can resolve complex infringement disputes early through negotiated settlements within the UPC framework.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision addressed an infringement action brought by Franz Kaldewei against Bette GmbH & Co. KG concerning a sanitary bathtub installation protected by EP 3 375 337 B1. The court found the respondent liable for infringing the patent in several member states, ordering preliminary damages of EUR 10,000.00. However, the overall claims were partially dismissed, resulting in a mixed outcome regarding liability and costs.
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
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues concerning deadline extensions and confidentiality requests (R. 262A) in a complex infringement case involving Dolby International AB against HP entities. The court established that comprehensive responses to FRAND objections require access to patent pool personnel, necessitating potential adjustments to disclosure rules. Crucially, the court opted for a uniform extension of all deadlines rather than a partial one, prioritizing procedural efficiency and preventing disparate timelines between technical and non-technical parts of the case.
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
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application for assistance of a third party (Streithilfe) in a patent infringement case involving Dolby and various HP entities. The court ruled that Access Advance LLC, acting as the pool administrator, had sufficient legal interest to participate. This ruling clarifies the conditions under which a neutral third party involved in FRAND licensing pools can be admitted into UPC proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS FRANCE Société à responsabilité limitée
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for deadline extensions in an infringement case involving Dolby International AB and ASUS entities. The core issue was balancing the standard two-month response period against the need to protect confidential business secrets under R. 262A VerfO. The court found that restricting access initially constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the extension of deadlines, thereby upholding procedural fairness for the claimant.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd; CUPOWER Europe GmbH
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division decided to consolidate the infringement lawsuit brought by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against CUPOWER entities with a counterclaim for patent revocation regarding EP 2 011 218 B1. The court justified this unified approach based on efficiency and the moderate complexity of the technology involved. This decision sets an important precedent for how UPC panels manage complex litigation, allowing them to address both infringement and validity simultaneously.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Ltd; Google Commerce Ltd
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Google (the defendants) to change the language of proceedings from German to English. Despite arguments regarding the patent's original grant language and the defendants' international presence, the court ultimately rejected the application. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing interests, particularly protecting smaller entities like the claimant against the convenience of large corporate defendants.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement case concerning EP 2263098. The court ultimately dismissed this application, balancing the interests of both parties. While Apple argued that the technical nature and corporate language favored English, the court found that Ona Patents SL had sufficient reasons—including parallel national proceedings and local resources—to proceed in German.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court addressed the validity of serving a statement of claim at an international trade fair. The court affirmed that a temporary business presence, such as a booth at a major exhibition, qualifies as a valid place for service of process under UPC rules. This decision is significant for patent practitioners involved in cross-border litigation, confirming practical methods for initiating proceedings against foreign entities.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Samsung Electronics to change the language of proceedings from German to English, matching the language in which the patent was granted. The court found that while both parties faced some disadvantages, retaining German placed a greater burden on Samsung, who needed to prepare its defense in English. Consequently, the application was granted, setting the stage for the main infringement proceedings to proceed in English.
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.