Dismissed
at Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
29 dismissed decisions from Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division.
Dismissed Decisions
29 cases | Page 1 of 1
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l.
In a case involving F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the claimants to withdraw their infringement action concerning EP 1 962 668. This withdrawal was based on an out-of-court settlement reached between the parties, which stipulated that each party would bear its own costs. The court confirmed the termination of proceedings and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees for Roche.
Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
In this UPC case, Versah LLC initiated an infringement lawsuit against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning EP 2 919 672 B1. However, before the written proceedings concluded, the claimant filed a motion to withdraw the claim. Both parties agreed to this withdrawal and subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement. The court granted the request for withdrawal and declared the case closed, while also ordering the refund of 60% of the initial court fees.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC allowed Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited to withdraw its patent infringement lawsuit against Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties, indicating that an out-of-court settlement had been reached. This case highlights how procedural flexibility in the UPC allows for the termination of litigation when parties reach a consensual resolution.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH a. o.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division allowed Maxeon Solar to withdraw its infringement action against Aiko Energy and related parties, while simultaneously allowing the Defendants to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. Although the case was settled by mutual agreement, the Court firmly rejected all requests for reimbursement of court fees from both sides. This ruling underscores that procedural agreements must align with strict UPC rules regarding timing and necessity, even in cases of amicable settlement.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this UPC decision, the Court addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 686 683 B1, which covers developer replenishing systems. While the core claims were dismissed, the ruling provided significant guidance on procedural fairness. The court held that defendants who use their websites to mislead the public about patent status may be compelled by Article 80 UPCA to publish the operative parts of the judgment themselves.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA concerning the diagnostic instrument and method covered by EP 3 756 767 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. This decision highlights the procedural implications of bifurcated UPC cases, confirming that a finding of non-infringement renders the validity question moot for the immediate action. It also sets clear parameters regarding cost allocation in unsuccessful litigation.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
This UPC decision involved a dual action: an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. Despite the complexity of the technology—which relates to advanced location estimation using positioning-assisting signals—both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim were ultimately dismissed by the Düsseldorf Local Division. The ruling provided important procedural guidance, emphasizing that registration status is prioritized in certain UPC proceedings, while also clarifying the requirements for establishing direct infringement.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA
In a procedural decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal of an infringement claim brought by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against Vantiva SA and its affiliates. Concurrently, the counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3186937 was also withdrawn. The court formally terminated both proceedings based on the parties' mutual agreement. This case highlights how procedural agreements between litigants can lead to the early conclusion of complex UPC actions.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA
In a procedural ruling before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC, Atlas Global Technologies GmbH withdrew its infringement claim against Vantiva SA and its affiliates. Simultaneously, the defendants successfully withdrew their counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent EP 3 353 901. The court accepted both withdrawals, declaring the proceedings terminated. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can lead to a swift conclusion in complex UPC litigation, focusing on mutual consent rather than substantive merits.
Headwater Research LLC v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC allowed both parties to withdraw their respective actions. Headwater Research LLC withdrew its infringement claim against Apple Inc., and in return, the Defendants agreed to withdraw their counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 107 243 B1. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to a swift closure of complex patent litigation proceedings within the UPC framework.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's attempt to introduce new claims related to indirect patent infringement outside of the established case management framework. The Court strictly enforced procedural rules, finding that these new requests constituted an impermissible amendment to the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance for patentees to adhere rigorously to the UPC's procedural timetable and filing requirements when seeking expanded relief.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural matter concerning a pending revocation counterclaim in an infringement action involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics. The Court allowed the Defendants to withdraw their counterclaim because no final appeal had been lodged against prior decisions, which was consented to by the Claimant. Consequently, the proceedings related to the counterclaim were closed, with both parties agreeing to bear their own costs.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC initiated a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics and its subsidiaries regarding EP 3 110 072 B1. However, before the written procedure concluded, the Claimant voluntarily withdrew the suit with the full agreement of all Defendants. The UPC Local Division Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawal, leading to the closure of the proceedings. Notably, the Court applied rules allowing for a 60% reimbursement of court fees for the Defendants due to the early withdrawal.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
In a case involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawal of an ongoing infringement action. Although the court had previously dismissed the infringement claim and revoked the patent (to the extent of claim 1), the parties mutually agreed to terminate the proceedings. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing actions to be withdrawn when there is no pending appeal and mutual consent exists.
Eyesmatch Ltd v.Microsoft Corp.
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing an infringement action when parties reach a settlement outside of court. Eyesmatch Ltd withdrew its claim against Microsoft Corp., and the Court formally closed the proceedings. The ruling highlights that mutual agreement between parties can supersede standard cost determination procedures, provided all necessary declarations are made.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed Ona Patents SL to withdraw its infringement action against Apple Inc., and simultaneously permitted the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation filed by the defendants. The court confirmed that since all parties had reached an agreement regarding cost allocation (each party bearing its own costs), no formal cost decision was required under the Rules of Procedure. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can streamline litigation, even when complex infringement and validity issues are involved.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
This UPC decision confirms the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures concerning EP 1 957 544 B1. DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC., the applicant, successfully withdrew its request with the agreement of Greenchemicals S.R.L., the defendant. The court formally closed the proceedings and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees to the Applicant. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to discontinue an action.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd.
Versah LLC initiated an infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 402 420 B1. However, before the written proceedings concluded, Versah reached an out-of-court settlement with one of the defendants (Respondent 2). The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the claimant's request for partial withdrawal against this specific defendant and terminated those proceedings. This case highlights how private settlements can directly impact the trajectory and scope of UPC litigation.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement and revocation dispute concerning the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab (Repatha®). While the case involved detailed arguments regarding second medical use claims, the court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The ruling served to clarify procedural aspects of patent litigation within the UPC, particularly emphasizing that pleading ignorance is not recognized under the Rules of Procedure.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer SA, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer Oy, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer B.V., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Pfizer Service Company S.r.l.
In a case involving GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and various Pfizer entities, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the Claimant to withdraw its patent infringement action against the Defendants. This decision followed the mutual agreement of both parties to terminate the proceedings. Crucially, the court also ruled to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the substantial court fees paid during the litigation. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can lead to swift resolution in UPC actions.
Per Aarsleff A/S v.IMS Robotics GmbH and IMS Robotics Nordic A/S
In a procedural decision concerning EP 2 129 956, the Unified Patent Court allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This case highlights how UPC proceedings can be concluded amicably through mutual consent, even when complex actions are involved. Practitioners should note that while the main dispute was dropped, the court still managed the procedural aspects, including setting the value in dispute and ordering partial reimbursement of court fees.
Dolby International AB v.ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
In a procedural ruling in Düsseldorf, the UPC court allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Dolby International AB withdrew its infringement lawsuit against ASUS and related entities, while the defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 490 258 B1. The decision confirmed the termination of all proceedings but also addressed the allocation of costs, granting partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides based on mutual agreement.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS FRANCE Société à responsabilité limitée
Dolby International AB initiated an infringement lawsuit against several ASUS entities concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. Before the proceedings concluded, both parties reached an out-of-court settlement and agreed to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims. The Düsseldorf Local Division formally accepted these withdrawals, terminating the case while allocating specific costs and ordering partial reimbursement of court fees.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In the case of Valeo Electrification v. Magna PT entities, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Local Division formally closed proceedings after both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants subsequently withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This decision highlights the importance of party autonomy in UPC litigation, allowing cases to be terminated amicably even when complex patent disputes are involved.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In a procedural decision concerning EP 3 320 604 B1, the UPC Local Division allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Valeo Electrification withdrew its patent infringement action against Magna entities, while the Defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and a license. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to the closure of complex IP litigation without a substantive ruling on validity or infringement.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories (and associated entities)
This UPC decision in Düsseldorf concerns the mutual withdrawal of a patent infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against various Abbott entities, alongside a corresponding counterclaim for revocation. The parties agreed to terminate all proceedings, including the application to amend the patent in suit. While the core dispute was resolved through consent, the court issued specific orders regarding the reimbursement of court fees, setting the value in dispute at EUR 4 million each.
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
In a procedural ruling concerning the dispute over EP 3 490 258 B1, Dolby International AB withdrew its infringement claim against various HP entities. Concurrently, the defendants successfully had their counterclaim for revocation withdrawn. The court formally terminated both proceedings based on the mutual agreement of the parties. This case highlights how strategic settlement and procedural agreements can lead to the early termination of complex UPC litigation.
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.
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.
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.