Denied
at Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
57 denied decisions from Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division.
Denied Decisions
57 cases | Page 1 of 2
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request by Hologic, Inc. to submit further written arguments in an ongoing UPC case against Siemens Healthineers AG. The Court ultimately rejected this request, citing concerns over unnecessary delay and insufficient justification provided by the Claimant. This decision reinforces the court's strict management of proceedings under the Rules of Procedure (RoP), balancing the right to be heard against procedural efficiency.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In this UPC decision, the Court of First Instance addressed a request by Wizart Inc. to impose security for legal costs on Leap Tools Inc., citing the latter's Canadian base and estimated revenue. The court ultimately rejected the motion, emphasizing that simply being non-EU or having moderate revenue is not enough to establish an undue burden of enforcement. Practitioners should note that applicants seeking security must provide detailed evidence regarding foreign law recognition and enforceability, rather than relying on general nationality arguments.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a complex cost determination dispute arising from an infringement case involving EP 2 697 391 B1. The core issue was whether the cost ceilings applicable to the initial Provisional Measures proceedings and the subsequent main infringement action should be combined or treated separately. The Court firmly rejected the Claimant's attempt to create a unified ceiling, reinforcing the principle that separate proceedings maintain distinct financial caps. This ruling is highly significant for patent practitioners as it clarifies the boundaries of cost recovery when litigation spans multiple UPC stages (PI vs. Merits). It mandates meticulous tracking and separation of costs to ensure compliance with individual proceeding ceilings.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 653 275 B8, the court addressed a request for an additional expert report following an initial inspection and evidence preservation order. The Local Division of Düsseldorf denied the supplementary expert opinion, finding that the existing findings were sufficient and that the procedure did not necessitate further technical clarification at this stage. However, the court granted access to the unredacted version of the expert's detailed description, ensuring transparency for the claimant.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This procedural order in the UPC case Align Technology v. Angelalign Technology concerns a request for leave to appeal an earlier decision that restricted the Defendants' ability to submit late-filed non-infringement arguments and further written pleadings during provisional measures proceedings. The Court of First Instance ultimately denied this request, asserting its discretion under the Rules of Procedure (RoP) in managing the case efficiently. This ruling underscores the court's authority to strictly manage procedural timelines, even when those orders significantly impact the substantive defense.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
In this UPC decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for an ex-parte order concerning the inspection and preservation of evidence related to robot localization technology. The court ultimately revoked the existing provisional measure because the applicant's submission was deemed incomplete and misleading regarding the core facts. This ruling serves as a strong warning to applicants seeking urgent interim relief that procedural integrity is paramount, especially when relying on ex-parte proceedings.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a.o.
Topsoe A/S sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and two other entities in anticipation of a main infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 802 413 B1, which covers hydrogen production via steam methane reforming. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements under the UPC Agreement for obtaining evidence preservation before commencing full litigation.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
In this UPC decision, the court addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation concerning a plastic purification device. The court dismissed the infringement suit, emphasizing that remedies like recall or destruction are generally inapplicable in cases of indirect infringement. Crucially, the ruling set high standards for provisional damages claims, requiring plausible factual support, and clarified the burden of proof in revocation actions, demanding detailed explanations of prior art combinations rather than mere citation.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l.
In this UPC case, Roche sought provisional measures against Menarini regarding the infringement of its sandwich sensor patent (EP 1 962 668 B1), which covers implantable sensors for continuous glucose monitoring. While the main application for an injunction was dismissed, the court issued important legal guidelines concerning claim scope and territorial reach of manufacturing injunctions. The decision reinforces principles on how process claims interact with product claims and confirms that anti-infringement measures can apply even when production occurs outside the UPC contracting states.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH
Topsoe A/S sought provisional measures, specifically an order for inspection and evidence gathering at the premises of SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, ahead of a potential infringement lawsuit. The patent in question covers hydrogen production using steam methane reforming with an electrically heated catalyst bed. Although Topsoe successfully initiated the process, the Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for inspection and evidence preservation. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain preliminary investigative measures within the UPC framework.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha to submit further evidence regarding additional infringing products found during a late test purchase. The Court rejected the Claimant's attempt to introduce new arguments concerning these additional model numbers, citing principles of due process and procedural economy. The ruling stressed that evidence should be presented without delay when relevant deadlines are approaching, especially if the subject matter is materially identical to what has already been pleaded.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG sought provisional measures at the UPC Düsseldorf Local Division to preserve evidence by inspecting a 'disposable morcellator' exhibited by Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. during the MEDICA trade fair, citing suspected infringement of EP 2 593 025 B1. The Applicant argued that detailed analysis was necessary to confirm component identity and potential infringement. However, the Court ultimately rejected the application for preservation of evidence.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG sought provisional measures to inspect the respondent's automated cable processing machine, 'BZW-3005,' at a trade fair in Munich, alleging potential infringement of EP 3 024 099 B1. The claimant argued that prior attempts to examine the machine were impossible due to security and access restrictions. However, the Local Division ultimately rejected the application for inspection and evidence preservation. This decision highlights the stringent procedural hurdles required to obtain urgent investigative measures within the UPC framework.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division rejected Surftown GmbH's attempt to extend critical deadlines in a complex infringement/revocation case involving wave machine technology. The Defendants argued that delays caused by confidentiality procedures unfairly disadvantaged them compared to the Claimant. However, the Court firmly maintained that extensions must be based on genuine legal complications or hindrances, not simply on comparative timing advantages. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to strict adherence to procedural timelines and efficient case management.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC Local Division dismissed the Defendants' demand that Align Technology provide security for legal costs. The Defendants had argued that due to the Applicant being based in the United States, enforcement of any potential costs award would incur substantial and potentially non-reimbursable expenses. However, the Court found that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof, specifically by not providing evidence on the foreign law applicable for enforcement in the US. This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required when seeking security for costs within the UPC.
Occultech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A.
Occultech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical for alleged infringement of its medical device patent (EP 1 998 686 B2), specifically concerning the MemoCarna occluders. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, finding that the necessary prerequisites for an injunction were not satisfied. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain provisional measures in UPC proceedings.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. sought provisional measures to inspect and preserve evidence related to the 'InverJet' product manufactured by Inverquark Deutschland GmbH, alleging patent infringement of EP 3 653 275 B8 (Counter-Current Swimming Device). The court examined the request for inspection at a trade fair booth but ultimately dismissed the application. This decision highlights the stringent procedural requirements under the UPC for obtaining evidence preservation measures prior to filing main infringement proceedings.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.
In this UPC case concerning egg packaging technology (EP 2 755 901 B1), Hartmann Packaging A/S sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH for infringement and simultaneously filed a revocation counterclaim. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent rights. Crucially, the court also rejected the revocation counterclaim, affirming the validity of the patent while providing important guidance on interpreting 'the same invention' under Article 87 EPC.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In this procedural order, Ona Patents SL sought to review a previous court decision regarding an interim conference, arguing that related parallel proceedings had generated new relevant arguments. The UPC Local Division dismissed the request, emphasizing the legal independence of different cases within the Unified Patent Court framework. This ruling reinforces strict adherence to case management procedures and limits the ability of parties to introduce late or external material simply to influence scheduling.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation regarding the respondent's 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell,' citing difficulties in accessing the machine. The UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately dismissed this application. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain provisional measures, even when a main infringement action is pending, emphasizing that procedural requirements must be strictly met.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH; Arçelik A.Ş
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application regarding simultaneous interpretation in a patent infringement case. The claimant, Dolby International AB, sought judicial assistance to ensure their non-German speaking representatives could participate fully in the oral hearing. Although the court agreed that interpretation was necessary for active participation, it refused to bear the costs of the service. Instead, the claimant is permitted to hire an interpreter at their own expense, setting a clear precedent on the financial burden of language support in UPC proceedings.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order from Düsseldorf Local Chamber, the court addressed the claimant's attempts to introduce late amendments to the scope of patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The claimant sought permission to modify its claims based on new arguments raised by the defendant in a counterclaim for revocation. However, the court rejected these applications, emphasizing that merely claiming 'surprise' is insufficient justification. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements under the UPC Rules of Procedure (R. 30.2 VerfO), requiring applicants to demonstrate a clear link between the opponent's arguments and the necessity of the late claim amendments. This decision serves as a strong warning against using procedural maneuvers to circumvent established timelines in patent litigation.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Chamber addressed disputes over the scope and timing of submissions in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 2 624 031 B1. The respondent sought to exclude large sections of the claimant's pleadings, arguing they were untimely or irrelevant to the patent validity challenge. Conversely, the claimant requested permission to introduce further arguments regarding claim waivers relevant to the infringement case. The court rejected all procedural motions, maintaining strict adherence to the UPC Rules of Procedure.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
Ecovacs Robotics sought provisional measures—specifically an inspection and evidence preservation order—against Roborock (HK) in the UPC, alleging infringement of its robot localization patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The claimant argued that Roborock's vacuum cleaners utilized the patented technology. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain urgent evidence preservation orders in UPC proceedings.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Cybex Retail GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's application to change its infringement claims regarding a swivel locking device for strollers (EP 1 905 615). The Claimant sought to modify claim language, primarily by altering how components were allocated between the 'seat' and the 'base' of the wheel bearing assembly. While the court found that the proposed extension of equivalence arguments was not fundamentally changing the targeted structure, it ultimately denied the application for leave to change the claim.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of its surgical instrument patent (EP 2 892 442 B1). While the core request for injunctions was dismissed, the court issued significant procedural rulings. These rulings clarify how courts handle parties who fail to attend oral hearings and set a high bar for what constitutes a 'substantially contested' allegation of infringement in UPC proceedings.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a motion regarding the partial refund of court fees following multiple settlements in an infringement and revocation action concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. Despite reaching agreements, the claimants and respondents sought fee refunds based on procedural rules. The Düsseldorf Local Division denied these requests, holding that because the oral proceedings had already concluded when the settlements were reached, the criteria for reimbursement under UPC Rules could not be satisfied. This ruling emphasizes the court's focus on administrative efficiency and the actual workload generated by complex settlement procedures.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
In this costs application concerning an infringement and revocation action, the Defendants sought to compel Headwater Research LLC (the Claimant) to provide substantial security for legal costs due to its US domicile. The UPC Local Division dismissed this request, finding that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. The court emphasized that a mere argument about enforcement difficulty is insufficient, especially when the claimant possesses significant, revenue-generating assets like a large patent portfolio.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a request for security for costs filed by Siemens Healthineers against Hologic in an infringement and revocation action. Siemens argued that enforcing potential cost orders would be unduly burdensome due to Hologic's US domicile, citing lack of international judgment recognition treaties. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the burden lies on the applicant to prove undue burden with specific evidence regarding foreign law application. This ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required for security for costs applications in UPC proceedings.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG
This UPC decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning evidence preservation and inspection related to the patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which covers specialized saw wires used in semiconductor manufacturing. The claimant sought to inspect facilities of Siltronic AG (and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG) to gather evidence regarding the use of patented saw wire types. Despite acknowledging the general principles of evidence preservation, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately rejected the application for an inspection and evidence-gathering order.
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.