Litigation
at Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
282 litigation decisions from Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
282 cases | Page 6 of 10
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected a request by Siltronic AG to review an inspection and evidence preservation order concerning European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which relates to shaped saw wire with controlled curvature at bends used in semiconductor wafer cutting. The court held that the original order, which included inspection of premises and seizure of delivery notes and invoices, was appropriate to secure evidence of alleged infringement. The court also found that the existing confidentiality regime sufficiently protected the respondents' interests.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, and Apple Retail France EURL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the bifurcation question under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, citing efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided by the same panel based on a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The defendants (expert companies) sought to recover €111,000 in costs after the patent was revoked and the infringement action was dismissed. The court rejected the cost assessment application as inadmissible because it was filed more than one month after the decision was served, as required by Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure.
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 is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, in which three of the eight defendants (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. They argued that the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., was financially vulnerable as part of the loss-making Maxeon Group and was based in Singapore outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order difficult. The Court found the request admissible and largely well-founded, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 100,000 within six weeks, while granting leave to appeal.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The court decided, with the consent of both parties, to hear the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was based on considerations of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided together by the same panel for a uniform interpretation 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 is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. Defendants 1, 2, and 4 (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) sought to extend a prior confidentiality order to cover additional green-shaded financial information in their Rejoinder and Exhibit HL 41. The court granted the extension for the specific identified information but rejected the broader request to extend confidentiality to all future submissions as too vague and indeterminate.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG and Others
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA filed a patent infringement action against 14 Pfizer entities concerning European Patent EP 4 183 412 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and did not object to a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 201,600) to the Claimant.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH & Erwin Härtwich v.Knaus Tabbert AG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action concerning EP 3 356 109 B1, directed at a frame for a vehicle with structural parts made of foam resin. The plaintiffs, who had developed the patented technology under a development agreement with the defendant (a caravan/motorhome manufacturer) but without any licensing arrangement, alleged that the defendant used their technology in models including the 'Travelino', 'Deseo', and 'Azur'. The court found partial infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and awarded damages and compensation, while also addressing the interpretation of product-by-process claims and compensation under Article 67 EPC.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in proceedings regarding European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'direkt oder indirekt' from claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach to the case heading. The court granted the first correction as a clerical error but rejected the second, holding that parties are not entitled to have all attorneys from the same firm listed in the decision heading.
Epson Deutschland GmbH (Application for Access to Court File in Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş)
Epson Deutschland GmbH applied to the Düsseldorf Local Division for access to pleadings and evidence filed in the main infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 605 534 between Dolby International AB (claimant) and Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş (defendants). Epson, which is being separately sued by Dolby before the Hamburg Local Division for alleged infringement of the same patent regarding projectors using Android TV, sought access to prepare its defence. The court partially granted the application, allowing Epson access to redacted versions of five specific pleadings, with further redactions concerning the interpretation and validity of the patent.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. and an unnamed specialist dealer at the IDS 2025 trade fair in Cologne. The applicant alleged that the respondents' 'DLyte' Compact Series machines (DLyte 1D, DLyte 10D, DLyte 100D) infringed its patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application in part, ordering an inspection of the DLyte 1D and DLyte 100D machines at the trade fair stand by an expert and court bailiff, subject to detailed procedural conditions, while rejecting certain additional requests.
Nichia Corporation v.Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 323 178 B1. The parties settled their infringement dispute during the written procedure, and the court confirmed the settlement. The court also ordered a partial reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff, amounting to 9,000 EUR, and set the value of the infringement action at 1,000,000 EUR.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG and Scandit, Inc.
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 819 062. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff withdrew its patent infringement action and the defendants withdrew their nullity counterclaim. The court allowed both withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees to each party.
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 37.2 RoP, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Hartmann Packaging A/S and the counterclaim for revocation filed by the Omni-Pac defendants. The judge-rapporteur was instructed to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The defendants, based in the USA, Netherlands, Germany, France, and Denmark, requested simultaneous interpretation from German to English for the oral hearing. The court granted the request to allow interpretation but ruled that the defendants must bear the costs themselves rather than having them treated as procedural costs.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1, which relates to a boost power factor correction (Boost-PFC) circuit. The court held that the accused LED driver embodiment did not infringe the patent because its capacitor did not satisfy the claimed decoupling element requirement, while also rejecting the defendants' validity attacks, including new arguments raised only at the oral hearing.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The court rejected both parties' applications under Rule 36 RoP for leave to exchange further pleadings in the infringement proceedings. The plaintiff had improperly introduced new arguments about equivalent patent infringement in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation without first obtaining leave, and its subsequent formal application was filed too late and lacked sufficient justification.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG and Others
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action filed by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer entities regarding EP 4 183 412. The Düsseldorf Local Division referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division and decided to proceed with the infringement action rather than stay it. The court also granted a one-month extension for the Defendants to file their Rejoinder, extending the deadline to 13 April 2025.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application by the defendant under R 36 RoP for leave to file a further pleading. The defendant sought to introduce a January 6, 2025 decision of the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office that fully invalidated the corresponding Chinese patent based on the same prior art. The court rejected the application, finding the request was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese decision without justification, the decision was submitted only in Chinese rather than the German procedural language, and granting leave would prejudice proper preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Procedural order concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in which the Local Division Düsseldorf addressed the Applicant's request to exchange a deposited enforcement security of EUR 2,000,000 with a bank guarantee. The Court found the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Registrar to repay the deposit to the Applicant, subject to the expiry of the review period.
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
Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing the Claimant's request under Rule 9.3 ROP for an extension of time periods. The court denied the main request for a three-week extension but granted a one-week extension, taking into account the Chinese New Year holidays affecting Defendants 1, 2, and 4's parent company in China. The relevant time limits were extended until 3 March 2025 for all Defendants to maintain harmonisation.
Per Aarsleff A/S v.IMS Robotics GmbH and IMS Robotics Nordic A/S
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 2 129 956. The Claimant (Per Aarsleff A/S) filed a patent infringement action on 20 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 28 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties jointly sought to withdraw their respective claims and requested partial reimbursement of court fees, with no cost decision sought by either side.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 12 February 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1. The order addresses an application under Rule 262A RoP to protect confidential information, classifying certain information contained in the unredacted Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defense and related exhibits as confidential, and restricting access to designated representatives of the Claimant.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff Dolby International AB withdrew its patent infringement action, and defendants ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France withdrew their nullity counterclaims. The court accepted the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, with partial reimbursement of court fees.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Dolby International AB against several ASUS entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, along with a counterclaim for invalidity filed by certain ASUS defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its main action and the ASUS defendants to withdraw their counterclaim. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, with a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH & Others
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court amended its prior order of 23 December 2024 to add three named individuals to the group of persons authorized to access confidential information, while rejecting the request to grant a fourth individual (Ms. [...]) separate access.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sued Kodak entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately revoked the patent in all Contracting Member States, finding that the claimed subject-matter lacked novelty over prior art and that the proposed amendments added matter contrary to Article 123(2) EPC. The infringement action was dismissed, and FUJIFILM was ordered to bear the costs.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH & Others
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for rectification under Rule 353 RoP filed in connection with infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., sought rectification of a prior order concerning the protection of confidential information. The court dismissed the application, finding no obvious slip or clerical mistake, as the unredacted version of the order correctly contained the name of a natural person of Defendant 7 (PowerDeal SRL) to whom access was granted, while only the redacted version had that name replaced with '[…]'.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message functionality. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that the defendants' 'Barryvox S2' device infringed the patent, while rejecting the defendants' counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and damages, while partially dismissing the infringement claim and declining to order publication of the decision.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message output during search operations. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The court found direct and indirect infringement by the accused 'Barryvox S2' device, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, information, and damages, while allocating costs predominantly to the plaintiff.
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.