Litigation
at Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
282 litigation decisions from Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
282 cases | Page 1 of 10
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A. Menarini Diagnostics France SASU
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities regarding European Patent EP 1 962 668 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written procedure was concluded, the claimants withdrew the action with the defendants' consent, having reached an out-of-court settlement whereby each party bears its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 7,500) to the claimants.
Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning European Patent EP 2 919 672 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and both parties consented to the withdrawal and to a partial refund of court fees. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff (EUR 6,600).
HyGear B.V. v.Topsoe A/S (Language of Proceedings Order)
HyGear B.V., a defendant in main proceedings concerning EP3802413 (hydrogen production by steam methane reforming), requested the Local Division Düsseldorf to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, finding that the balancing of interests favored HyGear, particularly given the accelerated nature of the proceedings and the need for efficient communication among defendants without reliance on translations.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a.o.
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 605 534, which relates to audio/video codecs used in smart TVs. The court addressed the FRAND defense raised by the defendants, examining whether Dolby held a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU and whether the defendants complied with the Huawei v. ZTE negotiation program. The court found in favor of Dolby on the infringement claim (granting injunction, information, and damages) and dismissed the defendants' revocation counterclaim.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH infringed claim 2 of European Patent EP 3 398 487 B1 (owned by CUP&CINO) through its ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo milk frother. The court dismissed ALPINA's counterclaim for revocation of the patent and granted relief including an injunction, destruction orders, information obligations, and recall orders, while holding that advertising materials are exempt from destruction under Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1, directed at a method and arrangement for generating a laser beam with different beam profile characteristics using a multi-clad fiber. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the infringement claim against IPG Laser's 'YLS-AMB' series fiber lasers, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered the defendant to bear 90% of the costs of the infringement proceedings.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG and Others
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 352 431 B1, in which the court rejected Hologic's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional brief formal comments on the Defendants' submissions dated September 24, 2025. The court held that the request was vague as Hologic failed to specify any new facts, and that Hologic's right to be heard was not unduly restricted since it retained the right to oppose the submissions and would have ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc. & BrainRobotics Inc.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The order summons the represented parties to an oral hearing scheduled for April 22, 2026, and sets non-extendable deadlines for the applicant to reply to the respondents' opposition by March 9, 2026, and for the respondents to surrebut by March 23, 2026.
beMatrix NV v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
beMatrix NV, the proprietor of European Patent No. 3 757 442 B1 concerning a display module for temporary exhibition stands, applied for provisional measures against Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division, alleging that Yaham's "Sytaq RA" modular LED display system infringed the patent. After Yaham's CEO declined to cooperate when approached at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, the court granted the preliminary injunction ex parte. The court subsequently issued a rectification order on the same day to correct a clerical error that had mistakenly named the Applicant instead of the Defendant in the operative paragraph.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendant's request for security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in proceedings concerning EP 3 859 566. The Defendant, Wizart Inc., sought at least EUR 300,000 in security, arguing that the Claimant, Leap Tools Inc., is a Canadian company with no UPC presence and limited annual revenue. The Court held that the Defendant failed to meet its burden of substantiation, as it neither addressed applicable Canadian law regarding enforcement of foreign judgments nor demonstrated that the Claimant's financial position raised legitimate concerns about recoverability of costs.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
Provisional procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 805 415. The defendants filed a request under R. 262A of the Rules of Procedure for protection of confidential information, seeking to designate certain information in their pleadings and annexes as trade secrets under Article 58 UPCA. The plaintiff raised objections to the confidentiality designation, arguing the information did not require such protection.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH a. o.
The claimant, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 258 692 B1 against multiple Hisense and Gorenje entities. Following a settlement, the claimant applied to withdraw the action, with all parties consenting and agreeing to bear their own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at €2,500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€14,400) to the claimant.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The Local Division Düsseldorf granted the application in part, issuing a preliminary injunction against five of the six defendants regarding the 'iOrtho' software (release 5.2 with 'Live Now' function) and aligners manufactured accordingly, but rejected the application against the European holding company defendant. The defendants were ordered to pay a penalty of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product and EUR 400,000 in provisional cost reimbursement.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH a. o.
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, involving a patent infringement action by Maxeon Solar against multiple defendants and counterclaims for revocation. Following settlement negotiations, the claimant withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaims for revocation. The court allowed the withdrawals, released the security for costs, but dismissed applications by both the claimant and defendants for partial reimbursement of court fees.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha sued Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. for infringement of European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, which relates to a developer replenishing container and system. The Düsseldorf Local Division found that the defendants' toner bottles infringed the patent, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, damages, and publication of the operative part of the decision on the defendants' websites.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
A patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 954 091 B1 was filed by Avago Technologies against Telefónica Germany before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written procedure was concluded, the claimant withdrew the action with the defendant's consent, and both parties indicated that an out-of-court settlement had been reached. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and set the value of the dispute at EUR 1,000,000.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the service of a preliminary injunction order dated 19 December 2025 on Defendant 2, Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese-based company. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, along with notification via email to Defendant 2's Amazon seller profile address, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, with service deemed effective as of 2 February 2026.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd and Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
This procedural order concerns the service of a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. The Applicant, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., had sought provisional measures against the Defendants, but service on the China-based Defendant 1. proved impossible through the Chinese Central Authority, which certified that no such company existed at the address provided. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, with the names of the parties and file number, constitutes good service on Defendant 1. pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This is a cost decision by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1, following infringement proceedings in which the court found partial infringement of claim 14 and ordered costs to be borne 30% by the Claimant and 70% by the Defendant. The Claimant sought reimbursement of costs from both the preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings and the main proceedings, arguing that the cost ceilings should be combined. The court held that PI proceedings and main proceedings have separate cost ceilings, that costs cannot be shifted between the two, and that in cases of partial success, the ceiling must be reduced proportionally to the success rate.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA and Others
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA and five of its European subsidiaries concerning European patent EP 3 756 767 B1, which relates to instruments and methods for detecting biological analytes. The Düsseldorf Local Division bifurcated the case, referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, which amended the patent to maintain only two claims. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding no direct or indirect infringement of the amended claims by the challenged VIDAS 3 instrument and related reagent strips and Solid Phase Receptacles, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH & Inverquark GmbH
This case concerns a request by the respondents (Inverquark entities) for a supplementary expert opinion and postponement of a decision on confidentiality interests in the context of an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected the request for a supplementary expert opinion, finding no legal basis and that it would be inconsistent with the purpose of evidence preservation proceedings. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant since no confidentiality interests were asserted, and set a deadline for the applicant to file a main action.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, a patent relating to methods for determining location estimates using positioning engines and signalling devices. The court held that the patent was valid but not infringed by Google's products, as the alleged infringing products did not embody every claimed component required for direct infringement. Costs were ordered against the Claimant for the infringement action, with a split for the counterclaim costs.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd a.o.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3258692 was filed by Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities. The claimant subsequently applied to withdraw the action against all defendants before the closure of the written procedure. The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning an application for provisional measures based on European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The Defendants sought leave to appeal a prior procedural order of 16 December 2025, which had directed the Court to disregard non-infringement arguments submitted in the Defendants' Rejoinder. The Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the order was a valid exercise of its procedural discretion under Rules 9 and 209.1(a) RoP and was closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH and Others
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese claimant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division, requested simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing. The Defendants did not object to Canon engaging an interpreter at its own expense but opposed court-organised interpretation and associated costs. The court applied a two-stage test and held that while allowing simultaneous interpretation was appropriate, the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, as Japanese is neither an official language of a Contracting Member State nor of the Local Division.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA and Others
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 3186937, involving a patent infringement action by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against Vantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, and Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Vantiva entities. Before the written proceedings were concluded, both the main action and the counterclaim were withdrawn by the respective parties with the consent of the opposing sides. The court allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, dispensed with a cost decision per the parties' agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to each side.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against three Vantiva entities regarding European Patent EP 3 353 901, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Vantiva entities against Atlas Global Technologies GmbH and Atlas Global Technologies LLC. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, both the main action and the counterclaim were withdrawn by the respective parties with the consent of the opposing parties. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, dispensed with a cost decision per the parties' agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to both sides.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 593 025 B1, which was executed at the Defendant's booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf. After the expert delivered its detailed description, the Defendant had not logged into the CMS despite having received an access code, preventing it from commenting on confidentiality interests. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the unredacted detailed description to the Applicant, lifting the confidentiality order, as the Defendant bore the responsibility to appoint a UPC representative to access the CMS.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for preservation of evidence and inspection under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 RoP regarding European patent EP 2 593 025 B1. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the Applicant because the Defendant, despite receiving a CMS access code at the time of service on 18 November 2025, never logged into the CMS through a UPC representative, thereby forfeiting its opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked an ex-parte inspection and evidence preservation order that had been issued in favor of Ecovacs Robotics against Roborock (HK) Limited concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The court found that Ecovacs had breached Rule 192.3 RoP by providing incomplete and misleading submissions, as it had failed to present any technical facts showing that the accused robot vacuum cleaners practiced the patent claims. The order was set aside with ex-tunc effect, except for the confidentiality provisions, and Ecovacs was ordered to bear the costs of the inspection.
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.