Litigation
11 litigation decisions from Düsseldorf Division.
Litigation Decisions
11 cases | Page 1 of 1
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. and Others
Aesculap AG brought an action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court against three defendants for direct and indirect infringement of European patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Following the oral hearing on 17 June 2026, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 reached a settlement, which they jointly requested the court to confirm under Rule 365.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered confidentiality of its details, and confirmed that each party bears its own costs, while the proceedings continue against defendant 2.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 805 415 B1. The Japanese plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., requested simultaneous interpretation from German to Japanese for the oral hearing and permission for Japanese representatives to participate via video conference. The court allowed the plaintiff to hire interpreters at its own cost using the existing courtroom equipment, but declined to order court-funded interpretation, finding that the plaintiff was not disproportionately burdened by the German language of proceedings.
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 645 903. The applicant, Valeo Electrification, filed a request under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP to protect confidential information. The respondent, SEG Automotive Germany GmbH, challenged the request, arguing certain information was publicly known. The court found the request admissible and substantively justified, establishing a confidentiality club limited to four named individuals from the respondent's side.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG. v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3685783, in which both parties jointly requested that certain information be classified as confidential under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262.2 VerfO. The court granted the request, finding a legitimate interest in protecting information regarding attorney time expenditure and hourly rates from public access. The order classified specific greyed-out passages in the respondents' cost determination application and the applicant's response as confidential.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. Following an inspection and evidence preservation order executed at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm it. The court confirmed the settlement under Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered confidentiality of the settlement details, and directed that only a redacted version be entered in the register.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsfü v.Respondent
This case concerned a request for confirmation of a settlement between the parties in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The proceedings originated from an inspection and evidence preservation order obtained by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH against ANCA Europe GmbH at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026. After the expert's detailed description was disclosed and ANCA Europe raised no objections, the parties notified the court on August 3, 2026 that they had settled the dispute and requested the court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365(1)(2) RoP.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH & Others (Akteneinsicht)
A member of the public (a patent attorney) sought access to the case files of a concluded UPC infringement action between Dolby International AB and three Optoma entities concerning EP 3 605 534. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber partially granted the request, allowing access to the complaint and most exhibits while excluding confidential out-of-court correspondence and requiring redaction of personal data and a confidentiality undertaking.
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V. v.Dolby International AB (EP 3 605 534)
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., as a member of the public, sought access to the court file of concluded main proceedings (UPC_CFI_226/2024) between Dolby International AB and Optoma entities concerning EP 3 605 534. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf partially granted the application, allowing access to the statement of claim with specified paragraphs and personal data redacted, while excluding the annexes.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendant, BAG Diagnostics GmbH, requested that certain information contained in its pleadings and an annexed document be treated as confidential. The court granted the request, classifying the grey-marked information in the defendant's brief of 29 June 2026 and Annex S 1 as confidential, while noting that any future requests for third-party access to the file would require a case-by-case balancing of interests under Rule 262.6 RoP.
CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, Telekom Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP 1 934 794 B1. The defendants (Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, and Telekom Deutschland GmbH) sought protection of confidential information under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the request in part, classifying sales figures, infrastructure details, enforcement consequences, and internal technical and commercial information as confidential, but denied protection for customer names and customer information, which were found to be publicly available.
fiskaly GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer Johannes v.Respondent
ORDER
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.