Denied
at Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
57 denied decisions from Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division.
Denied Decisions
57 cases | Page 2 of 2
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a costs determination application filed by the defendants following a complex infringement and revocation proceeding. Although the initial lawsuit resulted in the patent being declared invalid in certain territories, the defendants subsequently sought to recover substantial legal costs from the claimant. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected this claim, finding that the application was submitted too late according to the strict one-month deadline set out in the Rules of Procedure.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an urgent inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. ahead of a main infringement lawsuit concerning its patent on surface treatment processes. The claimant argued that the respondent's specialized sales channels made it nearly impossible to obtain products for testing, thus preventing verification of alleged infringements. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing procedural requirements and setting strict deadlines for filing the main action.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion regarding simultaneous interpretation during oral hearings in an infringement case involving diabetes technology. The respondents, who were non-German speakers, requested court-ordered translation to ensure their right to be heard given the complexity of the technical and legal issues. The Local Division acknowledged the need for accessibility but ultimately denied the request that the costs be covered by the proceedings. This ruling reinforces the principle that while procedural fairness is paramount, the financial burden of specialized services like simultaneous interpretation generally rests with the requesting party unless explicitly mandated otherwise.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement and revocation action against CUPOWER for allegedly infringing its Boost-PFC circuit patent (EP 2 011 218 B1) used in LED drivers. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision underscores the high bar required to prove infringement or successfully challenge a granted European patent within the unified system.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses procedural motions regarding the exchange of further written pleadings in a patent infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 755 901 B1. The court ruled against both the claimant (Hartmann Packaging A/S) and the respondents (Omni-Pac GmbH). The ruling underscores strict adherence to the UPC's procedural timetable, requiring parties to utilize their allotted submissions or formally request additional pleadings under R. 36 VerfO with strong justification.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court rejected a request by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. to introduce evidence regarding a Chinese patent's invalidation decision into the UPC proceedings. The court found that the late submission and failure to provide the document in German prejudiced the preparation for the upcoming oral hearing. This case highlights the strict procedural requirements of the UPC, emphasizing timely submissions and adherence to the official language of the proceedings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
In a significant decision concerning lithographic printing technology, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf revoked EP 3 594 009 B1 following a counterclaim for revocation. The court also dismissed the infringement action brought by Fujifilm against Kodak entities. This case highlights the critical interplay between jurisdiction, claim construction principles (favoring broad interpretation), and the strict requirements for amending claims under Art. 123(2) EPC. For patent practitioners, this decision underscores that even if an infringement suit is filed, a successful revocation counterclaim can lead to complete invalidation of the patent.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed an application for rectification concerning EP 3 065 184 B1. The court dismissed the request, finding that the original decision was accurate and did not contain any clerical mistakes or 'obvious slips.' This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of Rule 353 RoP regarding when a party can seek to amend a judicial order.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request from Fujifilm Corporation for simultaneous interpretation during oral proceedings, citing concerns over language barriers. The court acknowledged that providing interpretation was necessary to uphold the principle of fair trial and equality of arms. However, it firmly rejected the claim that these costs should be covered by the Court, stating that while the Claimant could hire an interpreter at its own expense, the UPC cannot generally provide services in all languages.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application by Fujifilm Corporation seeking to overturn a previous decision that denied them permission for a further written submission. The dispute centered on the right of prior use defense raised by Kodak entities. The UPC Panel dismissed the request, emphasizing that strict adherence to procedural timelines is crucial in complex patent litigation. This ruling reinforces the principle that parties must manage their filing deadlines carefully to avoid unnecessary delays in proceedings.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This UPC CFI case involved an application for rectification filed by Magna against Valeo following a previous injunction order concerning electric motor generators and gearbox assemblies used in BMW vehicles. Magna sought to amend the scope of the permitted use exceptions and clarify the geographical reach of related litigation actions. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected these requests, confirming that the original Order was legally sound and contained no clerical errors or obvious slips.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application for rectification filed by Magna against Valeo following a prior injunction concerning electric motor generators and related parts used in BMW vehicles. Magna sought to amend the scope of the permitted use exceptions and clarify the geographical reach of a parallel vindication action. The Court ultimately dismissed these requests, upholding the original order's wording and finding that no 'obvious slip' or clerical error existed.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request by Fujifilm Corporation to submit further written observations regarding the private prior use defense raised by Kodak entities. The Court ultimately rejected the request, citing concerns over unnecessary delay and the timing of the submission relative to other proceedings. This decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements within the UPC, emphasizing that requests for additional pleadings must be carefully weighed against the overall efficiency and timeline of the litigation.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought permission to introduce new evidence regarding the respondent's offering of a 'Barryvox S' device with voice control. The court ultimately rejected this request. While existing interim measures protect against infringement by the 'Barryvox S2', the introduction of the 'Barryvox S' requires careful procedural handling, balancing the claimant's need for information against the respondents' right to be heard within the limited time frame.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed a request for deadline extensions filed by CAN Srl Airxcel Europe in an infringement case concerning EP 1 788 320 B1. The court strictly rejected both the preliminary opposition and statement of defense extension requests. The decision underscores the UPC's commitment to timely proceedings, requiring parties to meet deadlines unless a compelling exception is demonstrated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
In this UPC case concerning diabetes care technology, the court addressed multiple procedural challenges raised by defendants seeking to change the language of the proceedings from German to English. The claimants argued that such a change was not permissible under the EPC or Rules of Procedure. Ultimately, the court dismissed all requests for a language change, primarily due to technical failures in meeting strict filing deadlines, thereby maintaining the German language as the official procedural language.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In this UPC case concerning diabetes care technology, the court addressed procedural challenges raised by several defendants seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The claimants argued that the procedural language was fixed and could not be changed against their will. The court ultimately dismissed all requests for a language change, citing strict rules regarding filing deadlines and the lack of legal grounds for altering the established procedure.
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.