Pending
at Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
74 pending decisions from Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division.
Pending Decisions
74 cases | Page 1 of 3
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA initiated proceedings against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. concerning the validity or infringement of EP 3 001 984 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order setting the date for oral hearings on April 22, 2026. This decision highlights the court's focus on ensuring technical expertise by requesting an additional qualified judge in the medical technology field (A61F/A61B).
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG; Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
In a complex dispute involving EP 3 805 415, the UPC Local Court of Düsseldorf issued an interim procedural order concerning the protection of confidential information. The defendants sought to classify various internal reports and supplier data as trade secrets, while the claimant objected to this classification. This ruling establishes strict rules for handling sensitive documents during litigation, including access limitations, confidentiality obligations, and potential penalties for breaches.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a. o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
This interim conference in the UPC focused heavily on procedural matters for a complex infringement case involving Canon and Katun regarding developer supply containers. The court established clear deadlines, including December 18, 2025, for cost estimates and translations, while preparing detailed feature breakdowns of the claims for the upcoming oral hearing. This order signals that the parties are moving into the substantive phase, with the full panel set to decide on infringement and damages.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addresses procedural matters in a patent infringement case involving Aesculap AG and several Shanghai Bojin entities concerning EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, while also proposing to expand the scope of the dispute to include an additional product, the 'Bojin Rosenfräser.' This move is intended to ensure procedural efficiency and prevent future litigation.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC concerns a procedural matter related to an application for inspection and evidence gathering concerning EP 3 802 413 B1. The court did not rule on the merits but instead corrected factual errors in the initial filing, specifically regarding the precise addresses of the respondent's various locations. This highlights the importance of meticulous detail when submitting procedural applications to the UPC.
Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company a.o. (and associated entities)
This Düsseldorf Local Division order addresses procedural matters in an ongoing infringement action concerning EP 2 449 782. The Claimant sought permission to submit a further written pleading to counter the Defendants' arguments regarding non-infringement and FRAND defenses. The Court granted this request, emphasizing that principles of due process mandate giving parties adequate opportunity to address disputed technical features and legal claims. This decision keeps the written procedure open for further exchange of pleadings.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed an application for inspection and evidence preservation concerning EP 2 983 864 B1. The court granted the claimant access to the unredacted expert report following the on-site investigation at the respondent's trade show booth. However, this order is conditional: the claimant must file a main infringement action against STEROS within a strict deadline, otherwise, the preservation measures will lapse.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a critical hurdle in the infringement action brought by Leap Tools Inc. against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC: serving the Statement of Claim. After multiple failed attempts to locate the Defendants' current addresses, the Claimant successfully argued that good reason existed for alternative service. The Court granted permission to serve Defendant 2 at their CEO's business address in Poland, allowing the infringement proceedings to move forward.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH
In this procedural case, Dolby International AB initiated proceedings against Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş regarding European Patent EP 3 605 534. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order cancelling the previously scheduled oral hearing due to unforeseen circumstances involving the defendants' legal representation. A new date for the proceedings has been tentatively set for February 4, 2026.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the scope of infringement claims in a stroller patent case (EP 1 905 615). The Defendants challenged the Claimant's attempt to extend its argument from literal infringement to equivalence for additional features. The Panel ultimately upheld the initial order, confirming that expanding the equivalence argument does not fundamentally alter the nature or scope of the dispute. This ruling provides clarity on how the doctrine of equivalence can be applied procedurally within UPC case management.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, and bioMérieux Benelux BV
Labrador Diagnostics LLC has initiated a patent infringement action against multiple bioMérieux entities before the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 756 767 B1. This procedural order sets the stage for the litigation, scheduling an oral hearing for November 27, 2025. The parties are now required to prepare their arguments and attend the hearing, which will be audio recorded.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE. LTD.
In a case involving TP-LINK and Atlas Global Technologies, the Düsseldorf Local Court issued an order suspending the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 353 901 and EP 3 186 937. The suspension was reached by mutual agreement between all parties involved in the litigation. This procedural step allows both sides to pause the UPC action while awaiting final decisions from the European Patent Office (EPO) or the conclusion of opposition appeals.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company and associated entities (including BAMTech LLC)
In a procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate an infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings against The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates. The case also includes a counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 080 349. By combining both claims, the Court aims for judicial efficiency, ensuring that any determination of patent validity is consistent with the subsequent assessment of infringement. This early decision sets the procedural framework for the complex dispute involving digital streaming technologies.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC issued an order clarifying confidentiality obligations in the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings involving Ona Patents SL and Google Ireland Limited. The court explicitly classified certain contract documents and internal company information as confidential under UPCA rules. This decision reinforces the strict handling requirements for sensitive commercial data within the unified patent litigation framework, ensuring that proprietary information is protected during the legal process.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG; Siemens Healthcare GmbH; Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V.; Siemens Healthcare SAS
In a procedural order concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2 352 431 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues of trade secret protection. The court granted the request to classify certain information regarding the design and functioning of the attacked embodiments as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the mechanism for protecting sensitive commercial data during complex UPC litigation involving major medical device manufacturers.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd; CUPOWER Europe GmbH
In a complex infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 011 218 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC issued an order suspending the proceedings. This decision was made at the request and agreement of all involved parties, who are currently engaged in parallel settlement discussions. The suspension allows the parties to pursue a negotiated resolution without immediate judicial intervention.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This UPC decision is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement and revocation action concerning egg packaging (EP 2 755 901 B1). The court has meticulously defined the technical scope of the dispute for the upcoming oral hearing. Key focus areas include the interpretation of structural elements, such as the retainment projection and nose, and the specific manufacturing method involving balancing deformations during suction molding. This order sets a clear roadmap for both parties to prepare their arguments.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Inventronics GmbH
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG initiated infringement proceedings against Inventronics GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC. However, recognizing that both parties were engaged in ongoing settlement discussions, the court issued an order suspending the entire case. This decision allows the parties to resolve their dispute outside of litigation while maintaining the legal status quo.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for provisional measures related to EP 1 998 686 B1. Although the core issue is infringement, the respondents raised challenges regarding the patent's validity. The court ruled that given these dual issues—infringement and invalidity—it was appropriate to enhance the judicial panel by appointing an additional technically qualified judge. This proactive step ensures early expert involvement in complex medical technology cases.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH; Arçelik A.Ş
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division allowed Dolby International AB to submit an additional written statement concerning the FRAND objection raised by Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. The court found that granting this request was necessary for fairness and ensuring all parties had a full opportunity to address complex arguments regarding standard essential patents (SEPs). This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines, particularly when dealing with intricate FRAND defenses.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the protection of confidential information in a complex infringement and revocation action concerning surfing technology (EP 2 728 089 B1). The Court meticulously defined which technical details within the defense statements and briefs must be classified as confidential. This ruling reinforces the strict confidentiality protocols available under the UPC framework, ensuring that sensitive commercial information remains protected during litigation.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In a procedural ruling within the Düsseldorf Local Court, the UPC addressed the language of proceedings for infringement case UPC_CFI_496/2025. Headwater Research LLC is suing Samsung Electronics entities over patent EP 3 110 072 B1. Both parties jointly requested that the court switch the procedural language to English, matching the language of the granted patent. The Court accepted this request, ensuring the case will proceed in English.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf stayed infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 252 857. The stay was granted because the issues raised in this case are substantially identical to those currently under appeal regarding patent EP 3 536 712. This decision prioritizes judicial efficiency and proper administration of justice, preventing redundant litigation while respecting fundamental rights.
igus GmbH v.Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
igus GmbH initiated an infringement action against Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. concerning its patent EP 3 912 243 B1, which covers compact cable protection conduits for cleanroom applications. The court issued a default judgment confirming the alleged infringement and granting broad injunctions across UPC member states. This case highlights the enforcement mechanisms available in the UPC against non-EU entities operating within the European market.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG, Cybex Retail GmbH
In a recent procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate two related actions: an infringement claim brought by Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. against Cybex GmbH and its affiliates, alongside a counterclaim for revocation. The court found that proceeding jointly was the most efficient approach, allowing both validity and infringement issues to be assessed under a single, uniform interpretation by the same judicial panel. This decision sets the framework for the full trial, which is yet to commence.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
In this provisional measures case, Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG sought urgent relief against BAG Diagnostics GmbH concerning EP 3 548 898 B1. Although the core infringement dispute remains pending, the court recognized that the respondent was simultaneously challenging the patent's validity. Consequently, the Düsseldorf Local Division proactively ordered the assignment of an additional technically qualified judge to ensure expert handling of the complex technical and legal issues from the outset.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
In this procedural order, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf addressed the complex interplay between an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning several coffee system patents. The court decided to handle both claims jointly under Article 33(3)(a) EPC, streamlining the proceedings. This early decision was deemed efficient given the moderate technical complexity of the subject matter.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf halted proceedings to address critical deficiencies in the Claimant's evidence regarding patent ownership. The court found that the documentation supporting various assignments and authorizations was confusing or incomplete, particularly concerning retroactive approvals. This ruling underscores the necessity for claimants to provide a clear, legally sound chain of title when asserting infringement rights under the UPC.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
In a procedural order concerning an infringement and revocation action, the UPC granted protection for confidential information sought by the defendants. The court recognized that specific technical design details of the challenged embodiment qualified as trade secrets under Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the importance of confidentiality measures in complex patent litigation, ensuring sensitive know-how remains protected while maintaining procedural fairness.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf issued an order to address significant ambiguities regarding patent ownership and assignment validity. The Claimant, Ona Patents SL, was challenged on inconsistencies related to its chain of title, particularly concerning assignments made by Ekahau Oy (Counter-Defendant 2). The court did not rule on infringement or revocation but instead mandated the submission of critical legal documents, such as Asset Purchase Agreements and board resolutions, before the written procedure could proceed.
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.