Partially Granted
at Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
49 partially granted decisions from Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division.
Partially Granted Decisions
49 cases | Page 1 of 2
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH
This Düsseldorf Local Division decision addresses a complex FRAND dispute involving Dolby and Beko concerning smart TV codecs. The court provided key guidance on establishing a dominant position in the context of standard-essential patents, linking it to consumer expectations for universal compatibility. Crucially, the ruling reinforced the strict procedural requirements of the Huawei v. ZTE negotiation framework, clarifying that failure by the alleged infringer to make an initial licensing offer ends the FRAND assessment immediately.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This UPC decision, delivered by the Düsseldorf Local Chamber, addressed a complex infringement case concerning milk frothing technology. While the claimant sought an injunction and damages for patent infringement (EP 3 398 487 B1), the court ultimately dismissed the main claim. Crucially, the judgment provided important guidance on remedies, specifically clarifying that advertising materials are exempt from mandatory destruction under Art. 64(2)(e) UPC Agreement because they do not constitute 'relevant materials' used in production.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision addressed an infringement suit brought by TRUMPF against IPG regarding a patent covering laser beam generation using multi-clad fibers. Although the court ultimately dismissed the main infringement claim, it issued a significant finding that the defendant is liable for further damages resulting from the alleged infringing activities. The counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was also rejected, leaving the patent valid but with complex financial implications.
beMatrix NV. v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a rectification of an earlier provisional measures order in the dispute between beMatrix NV. and Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. The original application sought preliminary injunctions against alleged infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1, which covers display modules for temporary exhibition stands. The Court ultimately corrected a clerical error in its prior ruling, ensuring that the Defendant was properly ordered to cease and desist from infringing the patent. This highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting administrative or drafting errors.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
Align Technology sought provisional measures against the Angelalign group regarding alleged infringement of its clear aligner orthodontic patent (EP 4 346 690 B1). The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a complex order, granting a preliminary injunction and imposing significant penalty payments on several defendants. While the court established the validity concerns were not automatically overcome by the applicant's claims, it found grounds for provisional relief against specific infringing parties. This decision highlights the delicate balance courts must strike when balancing patent holder rights with defendant challenges during urgent interim proceedings in the UPC.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request from Canon Kabushiki Kaisha for simultaneous Japanese interpretation during oral proceedings. The Court ruled that allowing the Claimant to use an interpreter was appropriate to ensure equality of arms, given that some corporate representatives were not proficient in English. However, the Court denied the request for court-organized interpretation and held that the costs would not become part of the proceedings, emphasizing that such arrangements are generally not provided unless necessary or if the language is official.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
This Düsseldorf Local Division order addresses procedural issues arising from an application to preserve evidence in a medical device patent case. The court emphasized that defendants must actively utilize provided CMS access codes and appoint representatives promptly if they wish to comment on confidentiality interests related to expert reports. Since the respondent failed to log into the CMS, the court proceeded with disclosing the unredacted expert description to the applicant while simultaneously revoking the evidence preservation measures unless the main infringement proceedings were quickly initiated.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures and a preliminary injunction against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The case, filed under R. 206 RoP, targeted counterfeit printer cartridges (types 924 and 937) sold by both German and Chinese defendants. Crucially, the court also imposed significant penalty payments on the Chinese defendant to enforce compliance with the provisional measures, demonstrating a strong enforcement stance in UPC proceedings.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues concerning the preservation and inspection of evidence in a medical technology dispute. The court ruled that if a defendant fails to utilize the provided CMS access code to comment on confidentiality interests after receiving an expert's detailed description, the applicant's right to proceed with disclosure is upheld. This ruling emphasizes the importance of timely digital engagement by parties involved in UPC proceedings.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard sought preliminary injunctions against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic regarding its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). Although the court dismissed the application for provisional measures in most aspects, it issued a highly specific order. This ruling forces the defendant to disclose detailed information about the origin and distribution of infringing products, backed by severe daily penalty payments if they fail to comply.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG
In this procedural case, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed a dispute over the disclosure of an expert report obtained during evidence preservation measures. The respondent (Siltronic AG) sought to keep certain sensitive commercial data—such as pricing and supplier bank details—confidential. The court ruled that while trade secret protection is paramount, the information relevant to potential infringement claims must be made available, leading to a partial redaction of the expert report before its disclosure to the claimant.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG sought provisional measures, specifically an inspection of a competitor's product (MORCELLIX) exhibited at MEDICA, to assess potential infringement of its laparoscopic morcellator patent. The UPC Local Division granted the request for evidence preservation and inspection but rejected the broader application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the court's willingness to facilitate early technical investigations necessary for complex medical device cases.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division permitted Leap Tools Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Wizart LLC (Defendant 2). The court found that because service of process had not been completed and Defendant 2 appeared non-existent or unserviceable, it lacked a legitimate interest in continuing the lawsuit. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding multi-defendant actions when one party becomes practically unreachable.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding alleged infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The court granted a preliminary injunction and imposed significant penalty payments, demonstrating the immediate enforcement power available under the UPC system for interim relief. This case underscores the importance of timely action when seeking protection against counterfeit or infringing components in the fast-moving printer cartridge market.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 110 072 B1, the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf corrected an error in its prior decision. The case involved Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., addressing issues related to patent infringement and costs. The court's ruling focused solely on rectifying a clerical and calculation mistake regarding the reimbursement of claimant fees.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a costs application following the withdrawal of an infringement action against Apple Inc. The Court determined that despite the case not being formally closed, the extensive exchange of pleadings warranted only a partial reimbursement of court fees. This ruling provides clarity on how the UPC assesses fee reimbursement when parties withdraw actions during the written procedure phase.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard Development Company sought provisional measures against two defendants regarding the alleged infringement of its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). The Düsseldorf Local Division granted certain provisional orders, notably imposing significant penalty payments on Defendant 2 for manufacturing or importing infringing devices. This decision underscores the UPC's ability to swiftly enforce rights through interim measures while maintaining flexibility regarding subsequent merits proceedings.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG; Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
In this UPC infringement case, the claimant sought to enforce EP 3 805 415 against Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH for offering and distributing metal plates. The defendants requested an extension of time to file their defense due to ongoing laboratory analysis of material samples. The Local Division granted a one-week extension, recognizing the need for thorough preparation, but denied requests for further delays, setting clear boundaries on procedural flexibility.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC provisional measures case, Aesculap AG sought to enforce a prior disclosure order against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding specific surgical instruments. The court ruled that while the underlying obligation was already in place, it granted the request for coercive fines (Zwangsgeld). This decision is significant as it provides strong enforcement teeth to discovery and information-gathering orders within the UPC framework, ensuring patentees can effectively compel disclosure from alleged infringers.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
In this UPC decision, N.V. Nutricia and Nestlé Health Science reached a settlement leading to the withdrawal of the infringement action concerning EP 2 359 858 B1. The court confirmed that an estimated assessment is sufficient for valuing actions in settled cases. Although the infringement claim was dropped, the counterclaim for revocation was disposed of, with both parties ultimately bearing their own costs.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France, S.A.S., Samsung Electronics GmbH
In a significant decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the infringement claim brought by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics while simultaneously granting the counterclaim for revocation regarding Claim 1 of EP 3 110 069 B1. The patent covered traffic control mechanisms in wireless devices, specifically related to Android's Data Saver functionality. This outcome highlights that a successful validity challenge can completely negate an infringement claim within the UPC framework.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a cost allocation dispute following a prior judgment where FUJIFILM sued Kodak for infringement and simultaneously faced revocation counterclaims. The court examined extensive claims by Kodak regarding high legal fees, expert witness expenses, and travel costs incurred during the complex proceedings. While some specific travel and accommodation costs were deemed reimbursable after reduction, the Court firmly rejected the claim for representation costs related to the cost procedure itself, setting clear boundaries on what is recoverable in summary cost decisions.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc.
10x Genomics sued Curio Bioscience for infringing its patent covering spatial detection of nucleic acids using array technology. After a detailed examination by the Düsseldorf Local Division, the court issued a mixed ruling. While infringement was found for certain claims (like Claim 14), the core claim (Claim 1) was not infringed. The action resulted in partial success for 10x Genomics, setting out specific financial and operational parameters for future enforcement.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC case, Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe). The core dispute revolved around procedural matters: specifically, whether the respondent could receive simultaneous interpretation and participate via video conference during the oral hearing. The court partially granted the request, allowing the respondent to hire an interpreter at their own expense, but rejected the formal application for state-funded interpretation and denied the video conferencing option due to insufficient justification.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request by the Applicant, 10x Genomics, to expand access rights within the confidentiality club for its legal representatives' firm. The Applicant sought to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings due to staffing issues. The Court partially granted this request, allowing the replacement of two specific members but firmly rejecting the broader proposal to grant blanket access to all paralegals.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a request by Grundfos Holding A/S to correct an earlier ruling against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf accepted the correction, significantly altering the scope of obligations placed on the respondent. Key changes include mandating product recalls for infringing goods and confirming that the respondent must compensate the claimant for all resulting damages. This case highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC to ensure judicial accuracy.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Grundfos Holding A/S sued Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. for infringing its patent covering a specialized heating circulation pump unit with electronic switching capabilities. The court found infringement, allowing Grundfos to pursue an injunction and damages against the respondent's sales in Germany, France, and Italy. However, the defendant's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed, highlighting the strict procedural hurdles required for introducing new prior art during litigation.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd.
In a significant procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber addressed the complex litigation involving Evac Oy and multiple defendants regarding vacuum drainage equipment patents. The court formally confirmed a settlement reached between the claimant and three of the five respondents (Respondents 4-6). Crucially, the proceedings against the remaining primary defendants (1, 2, and 3) were allowed to continue, indicating that the core infringement dispute remains active.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a costs determination application following an infringement and revocation proceedings involving Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH and Mammut Sports Group. The court analyzed the reasonableness of the respondent's cost claims, specifically scrutinizing how they calculated the relevant claim value for fee assessment. Ultimately, the court partially granted the claimant's request, limiting the recoverable costs to 4,866.11 EUR due to methodological errors in the respondents' calculation.
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
In a procedural order concerning security of legal costs, the UPC addressed concerns raised by several defendants regarding the financial stability of the claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants' request for security, setting the required amount at EUR 100,000. This decision underscores the court's power to manage procedural risks and ensure that patent holders can bear the costs associated with litigation.
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.