Litigation
at Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
282 litigation decisions from Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
282 cases | Page 7 of 10
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned European Patent EP 3 320 604 B1. The Claimant, Valeo Electrification, filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and counterclaims, and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs. The Court allowed both withdrawals and declared all proceedings closed.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories et al.
DexCom, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities concerning European patent EP 4 026 488 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After the Abbott defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and conditional application to amend the patent, and the defendants in turn withdrew their counterclaim. The court allowed all withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to each party for their respective actions.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited & Google Commerce Limited
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Defendants (Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant (Ona Patents SL) lacked the financial resources to cover any potential cost order. The Court granted the request in part, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks of service of the order, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its financial position despite the Defendants presenting credible concerns.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, and Apple Retail France EURL
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 requested that the claimant, Ona Patents SL, provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the request well-founded, holding that the claimant, a recently founded entity with minimal share capital and no apparent financial reserves, failed to substantiate its ability to bear potential costs. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks, rejecting the defendants' request for EUR 1.012 million and a one-week deadline.
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, addressing a request by Defendants 3, 5 to 8 (Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, and Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico) to classify certain information as confidential. The court found that while the formal requirements of R. 262A.3 RoP were not met, the request under R. 262.2 RoP was admissible. The court classified the green-shaded passages in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, along with Exhibits Aff3 and Aff4, as confidential trade secrets relating to revenue, profit, and sales figures of Defendants 7 and 8.
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 the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court granted confidentiality protection for green-shaded financial information (revenue, profit, and sales figures) submitted by Defendants 1, 2, and 4 in their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, while rejecting the request for protection of grey-shaded technical information that had already been submitted in parallel proceedings before the District Court of Mannheim without confidentiality measures.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) requested an extension of time limits for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court harmonised the time limits and set the deadline at 14 January 2025, but rejected the request for any further extension beyond the statutory period.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Dolby International AB against 15 HP entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the HP defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its action and the HP defendants to withdraw their counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed both withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees to both parties.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Claimant 10x Genomics requested that the Defendant Curio Bioscience provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Defendant argued the application was inadmissible, contending that Art. 69(4) UPCA only permits defendants to request security from claimants. The Court held the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Defendant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within four weeks, and granted leave to appeal.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 594 009 B1 in a patent infringement action. The Court disregarded the Defendants' written submissions filed on 28 November 2024 because the Defendants failed to make a reasoned request for further written submissions as required under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing for its representatives who lacked sufficient English skills. The court granted the request for interpretation but ruled that the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, allowing FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France SARL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 28 November 2024 in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 320 604 B1. The order classifies certain information contained in the Defendants' Statement of defence and specific exhibits as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP, and restricts access to a defined group of authorised persons on the Claimant's side.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's application under Rule 333 RoP to review and set aside a prior order by the Judge-Rapporteur that had rejected FUJIFILM's request to submit a further written pleading in response to new prior use allegations raised by the Kodak defendants in their Rejoinder. The Panel found the request for review admissible but dismissed it on the merits, holding that the Judge-Rapporteur had correctly balanced the risk of delay against the Claimant's interest in further written submissions.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories et al.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488, in which DexCom, Inc. brought a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities who filed a counterclaim for revocation. 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, primarily for reasons of procedural efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
The Defendants filed an application under R. 353 RoP seeking rectification of an Order dated 31 October 2024, which had granted provisional measures against them concerning EP 3 320 604 B1. They sought three corrections: adding '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the list of exempted BMW models, clarifying that a French vindication action covered both French and German parts of the patent, and amending a statement about an obligation to update a list. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the application, finding no clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, or obvious slips in the original Order.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories et al.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488. The Claimant DexCom, Inc. requested an extension of time limits for filing the Rejoinder to the Counterclaim for revocation and the Reply to the conditional Application to amend. Although the Defendants (multiple Abbott entities) did not consent, the court granted the extension based on fairness and equity, extending the deadlines until 11 December 2024.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed an application by the Defendants (Magna entities) for rectification of an earlier order dated 31 October 2024, which had granted provisional measures against them in favor of the Applicant (Valeo Electrification) concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Defendants sought three corrections: adding the BMW model '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the exemption list, clarifying that a French vindication action also covered the German and Slovak parts of the patent, and correcting a statement about the parties' agreement to update a list. The Court found no obvious slips warranting rectification under R. 353 RoP and dismissed the application.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against three Magna entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 concerning a rotary electric machine with a lubricant reservoir. The court granted the injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease offering, placing on the market, or using infringing rotary electric machines and assemblies in Germany and France, subject to a security of EUR 2,500,000 and with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) before the Düsseldorf Local Division against three Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604 B1, a European patent relating to a rotary electric machine with angular position adjustment. The court granted the preliminary injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease manufacturing, offering, and selling infringing embodiments, with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations subject to security, and conditioned enforcement on the Applicant providing EUR 2,500,000 in security.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
SodaStream Industries Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 793 917 B1 concerning a device for carbonating liquid with pressurized gas, brought an infringement action against Aarke AB regarding its 'Aarke Carbonator Pro' sparkling water makers. The Local Division Düsseldorf found that the Defendant's product infringed Claim 1 of the patent in suit, rejecting the Defendant's Gillette defense and arguments that the claims should be limited to preferred embodiments. The Court granted injunctive relief, information orders, product surrender/recall, and an interim award of EUR 250,000 in damages, but dismissed the request for publication of the decision in public media.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. The court rejected FUJIFILM Corporation's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional written pleadings in response to the Kodak defendants' arguments on private prior use raised in their Rejoinder. The court held that allowing further submissions would cause unacceptable delay given the oral hearing already scheduled for December 2024, and that FUJIFILM's right to be heard was not unduly restricted as it could respond to new factual allegations during the interim procedure or at the oral hearing.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, in which the plaintiff Ortovox sought leave under Rule 36 RoP to file further pleadings after learning that the defendants were also offering the 'Barryvox S' with voice control, in addition to the previously attacked 'Barryvox S2'. The court rejected the application, finding that the plaintiff was already protected by confirmed provisional measures regarding the Barryvox S2, and that the Barryvox S was not part of the proceedings, requiring further submissions and response time that could not be accommodated before the scheduled oral hearing.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. Upon a joint request by the parties, the court ordered a stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure and cancelled the oral hearing previously scheduled for June 17, 2025.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. The defendant, CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, requested extensions of the preliminary objection deadline and the deadline for filing a statement of defense and counterclaim. The court rejected both requests, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying an extension under the strict time regime of the Rules of Procedure.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringement of European Patent No. 3 223 320 B1, which relates to a light emitting diode. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked the patent for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, rejected the plaintiff's requests for amendment, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 1793917 before the Local Division in Düsseldorf, the Defendant (Aarke AB) requested an adjournment of the oral hearing pending the Court of Appeal's decision on its dismissed request for security for costs. The Court dismissed the request for adjournment, holding that since an order concerning security for costs is not listed in Art. 74(3) UPCA, there is no requirement to await a final order of the Court of Appeal before rendering its own decision on the merits.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, which relates to a light emitting diode. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, information disclosure, destruction of infringing products, and damages, while declining to require security from the plaintiff.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The defendants (Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH) sought leave to file further written observations by October 28, 2024, in response to the Court of Appeal's order of September 25, 2024 in case UPC_CoA_182/2024. The presiding judge rejected the application, finding that the Court of Appeal's order provided no basis for allowing further pleadings in the main proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against Optoma entities before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534. Before the defendants' deadline to respond or file a counterclaim for revocation, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement. The defendants consented to the withdrawal and the plaintiff's cost proposals, and the court issued an order terminating the proceedings.
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.