Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
327 cases · page 9 of 11
Showing 241–269Mammut 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.
PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing a request by Defendants 3, 5 to 8 (Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, and Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico) to classify certain information as confidential. The court found that while the formal requirements of R. 262A.3 RoP were not met, the request under R. 262.2 RoP was admissible. The court classified the green-shaded passages in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, along with Exhibits Aff3 and Aff4, as confidential trade secrets relating to revenue, profit, and sales figures of Defendants 7 and 8.
Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, Memodo GmbH, PowerDeal SRL v.Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court granted confidentiality protection for green-shaded financial information (revenue, profit, and sales figures) submitted by Defendants 1, 2, and 4 in their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, while rejecting the request for protection of grey-shaded technical information that had already been submitted in parallel proceedings before the District Court of Mannheim without confidentiality measures.
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) requested an extension of time limits for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court harmonised the time limits and set the deadline at 14 January 2025, but rejected the request for any further extension beyond the statutory period.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This case concerns European Patent No. EP 3 490 258 B1 and was decided by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on December 11, 2024. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, brought the action against fifteen HP entities across Europe, with Access Advance LLC intervening in support of the plaintiff. The decision was rendered by a panel consisting of Presiding Judge Thomas as rapporteur, legally qualified judges Dr. Thom and Brinkman, and technically qualified judge Augarde.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Claimant 10x Genomics requested that the Defendant Curio Bioscience provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Defendant argued the application was inadmissible, contending that Art. 69(4) UPCA only permits defendants to request security from claimants. The Court held the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Defendant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within four weeks, and granted leave to appeal.
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 594 009 B1 in a patent infringement action. The Court disregarded the Defendants' written submissions filed on 28 November 2024 because the Defendants failed to make a reasoned request for further written submissions as required under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing for its representatives who lacked sufficient English skills. The court granted the request for interpretation but ruled that the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, allowing FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense.
Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
This Procedural Order concerns the protection of confidential information in an infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 3 320 604 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the Claimant's request to add Patent Attorney Florian Saadi to its team of authorised persons, finding the wish to keep teams parallel between the main and parallel PI proceedings reasonable, but declined to extend the group further. The Court classified information contained in the Defendants' Statement of defence and associated exhibits as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP, restricting access to specifically named representatives, natural reliable persons, and additional attorneys.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's application under Rule 333 RoP to review and set aside a prior order by the Judge-Rapporteur that had rejected FUJIFILM's request to submit a further written pleading in response to new prior use allegations raised by the Kodak defendants in their Rejoinder. The Panel found the request for review admissible but dismissed it on the merits, holding that the Judge-Rapporteur had correctly balanced the risk of delay against the Claimant's interest in further written submissions.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Laboratories GmbH, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Oy, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott (S.A./N.V.), Abbott B.V., Abbott France (S.A.S.), Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott Diabetes
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488, in which DexCom, Inc. brought a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, primarily for reasons of procedural efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488. The Claimant DexCom, Inc. requested an extension of time limits for filing the Rejoinder to the Counterclaim for revocation and the Reply to the conditional Application to amend. Although the Defendants (multiple Abbott entities) did not consent, the court granted the extension based on fairness and equity, extending the deadlines until 11 December 2024.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed an application by the Defendants (Magna entities) for rectification of an earlier order dated 31 October 2024, which had granted provisional measures against them in favor of the Applicant (Valeo Electrification) concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Defendants sought three corrections: adding the BMW model '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the exemption list, clarifying that a French vindication action also covered the German and Slovak parts of the patent, and correcting a statement about the parties' agreement to update a list. The Court found no obvious slips warranting rectification under R. 353 RoP and dismissed the application.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against three Magna entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 concerning a rotary electric machine with a lubricant reservoir. The court granted the injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease offering, placing on the market, or using infringing rotary electric machines and assemblies in Germany and France, subject to a security of EUR 2,500,000 and with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations.
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) before the Düsseldorf Local Division against three Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604 B1, a European patent relating to a rotary electric machine with angular position adjustment. The court granted the preliminary injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease manufacturing, offering, and selling infringing embodiments, with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations subject to security, and conditioned enforcement on the Applicant providing EUR 2,500,000 in security.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
SodaStream Industries Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 793 917 B1 concerning a device for carbonating liquid with pressurized gas, brought an infringement action against Aarke AB regarding its 'Aarke Carbonator Pro' sparkling water makers. The Local Division Düsseldorf found that the Defendant's product infringed Claim 1 of the patent in suit, rejecting the Defendant's Gillette defense and arguments that the claims should be limited to preferred embodiments. The Court granted injunctive relief, information orders, product surrender/recall, and an interim award of EUR 250,000 in damages, but dismissed the request for publication of the decision in public media.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. The court rejected FUJIFILM Corporation's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional written pleadings in response to the Kodak defendants' arguments on private prior use raised in their Rejoinder. The court held that allowing further submissions would cause unacceptable delay given the oral hearing already scheduled for December 2024, and that FUJIFILM's right to be heard was not unduly restricted as it could respond to new factual allegations during the interim procedure or at the oral hearing.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought leave under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file additional submissions after learning that the defendants were also offering the 'Barryvox S' (in addition to the previously accused 'Barryvox S2') with voice control functionality. The court denied the request, finding no basis to permit further submissions, noting that the plaintiff is already protected by confirmed provisional measures orders regarding the 'Barryvox S2' and retains remedies for any potential violations.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, is represented by Bardehle Pagenberg, with Access Advance LLC intervening as a supporting party. The defendants are fifteen HP entities across multiple European jurisdictions, represented by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas as rapporteur, together with legally qualified judges Dr. Thom and Brinkman, and a technically qualified judge.
CAN Srl Airxcel Europe v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendant, CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, to extend the deadlines for filing a preliminary objection and a statement of defense/counterclaim in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. The defendant argued that service of the statement of claim at a trade fair was ineffective. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected both extension requests, holding that the strict time regime of the Rules of Procedure permits extensions only in exceptional cases, and the defendant failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstances.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1, with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. as plaintiff suing two related defendants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, for patent infringement. The court addressed procedural questions regarding the treatment of multiple defendants in a single action, the filing of counterclaims for patent revocation by individual defendants, and whether security for costs should be ordered. The decision was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on October 10, 2024.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 1793917 before the Local Division in Düsseldorf, the Defendant (Aarke AB) requested an adjournment of the oral hearing pending the Court of Appeal's decision on its dismissed request for security for costs. The Court dismissed the request for adjournment, holding that since an order concerning security for costs is not listed in Art. 74(3) UPCA, there is no requirement to await a final order of the Court of Appeal before rendering its own decision on the merits.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. as the plaintiff and expert e-Commerce GmbH as one of the defendants. The decision addresses procedural questions regarding the treatment of multiple defendants in a single action, the filing of counterclaims for patent revocation by individual defendants, and the question of whether security for costs should be ordered. The court held that proceedings against multiple defendants remain formally independent, that an isolated counterclaim for revocation by individual defendants is permissible, and that no security requirement was imposed in this case.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent No. EP 3 466 498 B1 in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The defendants sought leave to file further written submissions by October 28, 2024, in response to a Court of Appeal order dated September 25, 2024. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected the application, finding that the appellate order provided no basis for permitting additional pleadings in the main proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against three Optoma entities concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the defendants' deadline to respond and file any counterclaim for invalidity expired, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement. The defendants consented to the withdrawal and the agreed cost arrangements. The court permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a partial refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
Magna 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.
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.