Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
292 cases · page 9 of 10
Showing 241–269Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG v.Ona Patents SL
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns a request for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The plaintiff Ona Patents SL brought the action against multiple Apple entities. The court found the request admissible and granted it to the extent ordered, holding that the existence of a negative fact does not per se exclude the need for confidentiality protection, and that even statements indicating that certain products do not support certain functionalities may qualify as confidential.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP3065184 (relating to trench processes and structures for back side contact solar cells) applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance was required to assess the admissibility of the application and the merits of the language change request. The order addressed both procedural admissibility of the English-language submission and the substantive balancing of interests between the parties regarding the language of proceedings.
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.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, 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.Respondent
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 reached between the parties, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, confirmed the parties' cost-sharing arrangement, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
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.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH for the release of a security deposit under Rule 352.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf had previously granted Ortovox an ex parte interim injunction on December 11, 2023, against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, requiring security of EUR 500,000 in the form of either a deposit or a bank guarantee. After Ortovox initially deposited the amount and later also provided a bank guarantee, creating double security, the court addressed whether the original deposit could be released.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1 in an infringement action brought by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. against expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, with Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. intervening. The order addresses the plaintiff's application under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to file a further amendment of the patent, following an initial amendment request filed on March 23, 2024 in response to a counterclaim for revocation by the second defendant. The court held that the timing of the decision on admissibility of a further amendment request lies within the discretion of the court, and that the two-month response period under Rule 32.1 RoP does not apply to subsequent amendment requests 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.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 It
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1 and addresses the treatment of an intervener (Access Advance LLC) in proceedings brought by Dolby International AB against fifteen HP entities. The court established that, unless otherwise ordered, an intervener is treated as a party under Rule 315.4 of the Rules of Procedure and may apply for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A regarding information contained in their submissions.
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
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.
Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP International SARL, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP Austria GmbH, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP France SAS, HP v.Dolby International AB
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed the treatment of an intervener (Access Advance LLC) under the Rules of Procedure, holding that unless otherwise ordered, an intervener is treated as a party pursuant to R. 315.4 RoP and is therefore entitled to the protections of R. 262A.6 RoP. The ruling clarified that the circle of persons authorized to access confidential information must include at least one natural person beyond the intervener's procedural representatives.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the Korean plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., for court-provided simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for September 5, 2024, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. The plaintiff, represented by German counsel, had filed the infringement action in German as the procedural language. The court addressed whether the court itself must provide interpretation services or whether the party must arrange and bear the cost of its own interpreter.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1, with Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG as plaintiff and Bette GmbH & Co. KG as defendant. The dispute involved issues of prior use rights, indirect patent infringement, remedies including recall and removal from distribution channels, disclosure of accounting books, and information requests. The court issued guiding principles on the territorial scope of prior use defenses, the procedural stage at which disclosure of books may be ordered, the scope of information rights during infringement proceedings, the distinction between recall and final removal from distribution channels, and the timing requirements for retroactive deadline extension requests.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
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.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 490 258 B1, addressing time extension and trade secret protection issues. The plaintiff Dolby International AB, supported by intervener Access Advance LLC, sought an extension of its deadline to respond to the defendants' (multiple HP entities) FRAND objection. The defendants had filed a confidentiality application under R. 262A RoP restricting access to certain parts of their submissions, which initially prevented Dolby from consulting with Access Advance pool employees. The court granted a full extension of the response deadline rather than a partial one limited only to the FRAND-related portions.
Dolby International AB v.HP PPS Sverige AB, HP International SARL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Deutschland GmbH, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Italy S.r.l., HP Austria GmbH, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Finland Oy, Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP Inc
This procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerns the admissibility of intervention (Streithilfe) by Access Advance LLC in support of plaintiff Dolby International AB against multiple HP entities in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed whether Access Advance, as the administrator of a patent pool into which the patent in suit was contributed, has the requisite legal interest to intervene. The court held that a direct and present interest exists where the intervener manages FRAND obligations and licensing of the portfolio including the patent in suit, and the defendant challenges the adequacy of the intervener's license offers.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the extension of deadlines for the reply to the infringement action and the response to the counterclaim for revocation in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court established that while R. 9.3(a) RoP empowers the court to extend deadlines, such extensions should be granted cautiously and only in justified exceptional cases. The court held that restricted access to unredacted submissions due to R. 262A RoP confidentiality requests constitutes such an exceptional case, requiring that the party and its representatives have sufficient time to develop a unified strategy addressing both infringement and validity issues.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff Tridonic GmbH & Co KG brought an infringement action against CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together under Article 33(3)(a) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 18/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG Maximilianstr
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 18/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Google Ireland Ltd Gordon House, Barrow Street 4
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Respondent
The plaintiff, an Austrian machine and plant engineering company, sought permission to serve its infringement complaint on a Turkish defendant at the defendant's trade fair stand at the PRS Europe fair in Amsterdam on June 19/20, 2024. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, service may be effected at any location within contracting member states where a company has a permanent or temporary business establishment, and that a trade fair stand qualifies as such when, as is typically the case, deliveries are also promoted there. The court ordered service at the specified trade fair address and directed the plaintiff to initially bear the costs of such service.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 30/05/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Samsung Electronics GmbH Am Kronberger Hang 6,
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, filed an infringement action on November 30, 2023, against fifteen HP-related entities across Europe, alleging infringement relating to HEVC-capable computers. The order addresses the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the claims (Klagebeschränkung) under Rule 263.1 and .3 of the Rules of Procedure.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc. brought a claim against Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of European patent EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Local Division in Düsseldorf. The court issued an order on 30 April 2024 concerning an application for provisional measures under Rule 206.1 RoP in conjunction with Rule 211.1 RoP, following oral proceedings held on 26 March 2024. The order addresses several key legal questions, including the presumption of entitlement to be registered as patent proprietor, the interpretation of stated purposes in patent claims, the standard for knowledge of infringement, and the applicability of security for costs in urgent proceedings.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1. Both parties jointly requested a change of the procedural language from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The court approved the request and ordered that the proceedings be conducted in English from the date of the order.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in the context of an application for provisional measures. The court addressed the language of proceedings after the Court of Appeal changed the language from German to English just two weeks before the final order was due. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the final order may be issued in German with a certified English translation to avoid unnecessary delay.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf addresses whether Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., a simple licensee and parent company of the patent holder Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., may intervene in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. The court held that a simple licensee has a legal interest in intervening because a successful revocation counterclaim would retroactively nullify the patent, stripping the licensee of its preferential position over non-licensees. Since the Local Chamber decided to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together, the licensee was permitted to intervene in the entire dispute, not just in the revocation counterclaim.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.VitalAire GmbH, Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V, Dinno Santé s.a.i.
This case concerns European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1 and was brought by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against six defendants, including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. The dispute centers on the language of proceedings, with the plaintiffs having chosen German. Defendants 2 and 6 filed an objection under Rule 19.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure, seeking a change to English, arguing that German is only the official language of one defendant and that English would be less burdensome for all parties. The order was issued by Judge Dr. Thom as Rapporteur of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, issued in proceedings for provisional measures. The applicant Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought interim relief against the respondents Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH. The order sets out key legal principles regarding patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC, the timing of filing provisional measure requests, the treatment of late submissions, cost decisions in interim proceedings, and the requirement for security in case of revocation of provisional measures.
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.