Partially Granted
at Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
49 partially granted decisions from Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division.
Partially Granted Decisions
49 cases | Page 2 of 2
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 EP 3 065 184 B1, the UPC addressed a request by several defendants to extend the confidentiality of their financial data (revenue and sales figures). The court partially granted this request, maintaining secrecy for specific green-shaded numbers in existing submissions. However, it firmly rejected the defendants' attempt to make the protection vague and applicable to all future filings, setting a clear boundary on how trade secret protections can be extended during litigation.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a procedural application concerning public access to court documents in the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_135/2024). The claimant sought extensive access to all filed exhibits and pleadings. The Court partially granted this request, allowing access to specific redacted versions of key documents while rejecting broader requests for further redaction or disclosure.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG seeking to correct errors in a prior judgment. The claimant successfully argued for the removal of specific phrasing ('direkt oder indirekt') from several claims due to clerical mistakes made during drafting. However, the request to formally add all participating counsel was denied, setting clear boundaries on what constitutes an 'obvious inaccuracy' under UPC procedural rules.
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 this complex pharmaceutical patent dispute, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a dual action involving infringement and revocation. Following unanimous requests from all parties, the Court opted to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division, citing procedural efficiency as a key factor. Crucially, however, the Local Division decided to proceed with the main infringement action itself. Furthermore, the Defendants were granted a necessary one-month extension to ensure they could address all issues related to the infringement proceedings.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a request for security of legal costs concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled in favor of the Defendants (Apple group). The court found that due to the Claimant's limited financial disclosure and minimal share capital, there was a legitimate concern regarding the recoverability of potential cost orders. Consequently, the Claimant was ordered to provide security amounting to EUR 500,000.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a request for security of legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled against Ona Patents SL. The court found that despite the Claimant's arguments regarding its solvency, it failed to provide sufficient financial evidence to convince the court. Consequently, the court ordered Ona Patents SL to deposit EUR 500,000 as security for the Defendants' potential legal costs. This decision highlights the stringent requirements placed on NPEs seeking enforcement in UPC proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a request for security of legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ordered Curio Bioscience Inc. to provide EUR 200,000 in security to 10x Genomics, Inc. The case centered on whether a claimant could successfully petition for cost security against a defendant under the UPCA framework. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of 10x Genomics, acknowledging the voluntary nature of litigation while balancing this with procedural fairness.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL
In this provisional measures case concerning an automotive motor patent (EP 3 320 604 B1), the UPC Local Division granted a preliminary injunction to Valeo Electrification against Magna PT and its affiliates. The injunction was conditional, allowing the Defendants to continue supplying specific models to their customer BMW if they provided a security deposit of €500,000. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach in balancing patent holder rights with the operational needs of defendants facing existing supply chain commitments.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In a significant ruling for the carbonation device market, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf found that SodaStream Industries Ltd. successfully proved infringement against Aarke AB regarding their respective carbonator products. The court granted an interim damages award of EUR 250,000 and issued a cease and desist order based on Claim 1 of EP 1 793 917. This decision reinforces the importance of precise claim construction under Art. 69 EPC while providing immediate relief to the patent holder.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In this provisional measures case, Valeo Electrification sought an injunction against Magna entities regarding the rotary electric machine patent EP 3 320 602 B1. The UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf partially granted the application, allowing the defendants to continue their existing supply obligations to BMW provided they furnish a security deposit of EUR 500,000 by November 21, 2024. This decision highlights the court's balancing act between protecting the patent holder's rights and ensuring business continuity for the defendant.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH; expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. successfully sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringing its patent covering light emitting diodes (LEDs). The Düsseldorf Local Chamber found infringement, leading to an injunction and damages award against the defendants. Crucially, despite the joint action, the court dismissed the counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent, thereby upholding the validity of EP 3 926 698 B1. This decision reinforces the enforcement power of the UPC while clarifying procedural rules regarding multi-defendant litigation.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
In a significant decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC declared European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1 invalid across key EU territories (Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands). This revocation was achieved through a counterclaim brought by the defendants. Although the patent was invalidated, the court subsequently dismissed the original infringement lawsuit filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The ruling highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where successful revocation does not automatically guarantee success in the initial infringement claim.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the scope and admissibility of an application to amend European patent EP 3 594 009 B1. Fujifilm sought to expand the territorial scope of its amendment, arguing consistency with its damages claims. The Court rejected this initial request (R. 263 RoP) because the limitation lacked objective justification required for uniform decision-making under Art. 34 UPCA. However, it subsequently allowed the amended application under R. 30.2 RoP, allowing the patent to be formally amended.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision addressed an infringement action brought by Franz Kaldewei against Bette GmbH & Co. KG concerning a sanitary bathtub installation protected by EP 3 375 337 B1. The court found the respondent liable for infringing the patent in several member states, ordering preliminary damages of EUR 10,000.00. However, the overall claims were partially dismissed, resulting in a mixed outcome regarding liability and costs.
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
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues concerning deadline extensions and confidentiality requests (R. 262A) in a complex infringement case involving Dolby International AB against HP entities. The court established that comprehensive responses to FRAND objections require access to patent pool personnel, necessitating potential adjustments to disclosure rules. Crucially, the court opted for a uniform extension of all deadlines rather than a partial one, prioritizing procedural efficiency and preventing disparate timelines between technical and non-technical parts of the case.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS FRANCE Société à responsabilité limitée
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for deadline extensions in an infringement case involving Dolby International AB and ASUS entities. The core issue was balancing the standard two-month response period against the need to protect confidential business secrets under R. 262A VerfO. The court found that restricting access initially constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the extension of deadlines, thereby upholding procedural fairness for the claimant.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this UPC case concerning nucleic acid detection technology, 10x Genomics sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an injunction, confirming the validity and scope of EP 2 697 391 B1. However, the court imposed strict conditions for enforcement, requiring 10x Genomics to post a substantial security deposit of EUR 2 million. This decision highlights the high threshold required for obtaining provisional relief in UPC infringement cases.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this provisional measures case, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf examined a dispute over EP 2 697 391 B1, which covers methods for localized nucleic acid detection. Although the Applicant (10x Genomics) sought various remedies, including costs security and injunctions, the court largely rejected these requests. The final order is highly conditional: while provisional cost reimbursement was ordered, enforcement of any measures requires the Applicant to first deposit EUR 2 million with the Defendant.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG
This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning provisional measures related to an avalanche rescue transceiver patent (EP 3 466 498 B1). The court upheld the existing injunction and security deposit requirement while granting preliminary costs relief to the claimant, Ortovox. The ruling also provided important procedural guidance on patent interpretation and cost allocation in interim proceedings when a main action is anticipated.
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.