Litigation
10 litigation decisions from Düsseldorf Division.
Litigation Decisions
10 cases | Page 1 of 1
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. & Others
Aesculap AG sued Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd. for direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Following an oral hearing on June 17, 2026, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 reached a settlement. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf confirmed the settlement under Rule 365(1) of the Rules of Procedure, ordered confidentiality of the settlement details, and declared the proceedings terminated between those parties, while the case continues against defendant 2.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., vertreten durch die Geschäfts, ihren Vorsitzenden Herrn Yoshinari Kitajima, 1-1-1, Ichigaya v.Zapp AG, vertreten durch den Vorstand, Dr. Stefan Seng (Vors, Zapp Precision Metals GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsfüh
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order concerning a request for simultaneous interpretation from German to Japanese for an oral hearing scheduled for September 17, 2026, in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 805 415 B1. The plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. (Japan), sought court-arranged simultaneous interpretation at procedural cost, while the defendants, Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH (Germany), opposed that aspect. Applying a two-step test, the court found that simultaneous interpretation was appropriate but not at procedural cost, granting the plaintiff permission to hire its own interpreters under Rule 109.4 RoP who may use the courtroom's simultaneous interpretation equipment.
guines, 95800 Cergy, Frankreich v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a confidentiality request filed by Valeo Electrification in interim injunction proceedings against SEG Automotive Germany GmbH regarding European Patent 3 645 903. The applicant sought to restrict access to certain unredacted documents and information to a limited 'Confidentiality Club' of legal representatives and specific individuals. After the parties agreed on a circle of four persons to be included in the confidentiality club, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ruled that the request under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure was admissible and substantively successful, while addressing the respondent's objections regarding the differentiation between public and party-specific confidentiality.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., gesetzlich vertreten durch d v.Respondent
This order concerns the classification of confidential information in proceedings related to European Patent EP 3685783 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Both parties jointly requested that certain information be treated as confidential under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the request, classifying information regarding attorneys' hourly rates, billing details, and time expenditure as confidential and accessible only to a restricted circle of persons.
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.
22, 80336 München, Deutschland, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Volkmar Henke, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Tilman v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführe, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Andreas Kramer, Powell Gilbert, Königsal-
A lawyer (Lars-Oliver Eggersdorfer of Boehmert & Boehmert) applied for access to the court files of a concluded patent infringement case between Dolby International AB and three Optoma entities concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534, citing professional interest in FRAND issues related to audio coding. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found the application admissible and partially justified, granting limited access while protecting confidential information regarding out-of-court licensing negotiations.
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., Carnegieplein 5, 2508 DH Den, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Volkmar Henke, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Tilman v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführe, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Andreas Kramer, Powell Gilbert, Königsal-
This order concerns an application by Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., as a member of the public, for access to the court files of a concluded patent infringement case (Dolby v. Optoma) concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534. The applicant sought access to better understand why Dolby considered the patent essential to the Opus Audio Codec standard. The court held the application partially admissible and partially well-founded, granting limited access to the statement of claim while rejecting access to exhibits as insufficiently specified.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG, Feodor-Lynen-Str. 5, 30625 Hannover, D, durch die imusyn Beteiligungs GmbH, ebenda, diese gesetzlich v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH, Amtsgerichtsstr. 1-5, 35423 Lich, Deut, ihre Geschäftsführer Dr. Ingo Dunya Meier und Dr. Nicolas Sa
This procedural order concerns the defendant's request to classify certain information as confidential under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendant, BAG Diagnostics GmbH, sought protection for a settlement agreement and cease-and-desist declaration from prior injunction proceedings between the parties, as well as information about internal processes and distribution activities. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the request, classifying the specified information as confidential, while noting that any general exclusion from third-party access would require a case-by-case balancing of interests under Rule 262.6.
CA, Inc., gesetzlich vertreten durch das Board of Directors,, fornia 95131, USA v.Deutsche Telekom AG, vertreten durch ihren Vorstand, Friedri, T-Systems International GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsf
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants for protection of confidential information under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure in an infringement dispute regarding European Patent EP 1 934 794 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the request in part, classifying sales figures, infrastructure details, enforcement consequences, and internal technical and commercial information as confidential, but rejected protection for customer names and customer-related information on the ground that such information was already publicly available. The preliminary order of June 17, 2026 was partially lifted to the extent it had covered customer information.
fiskaly GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer Johannes v.Respondent
This case concerns European Patent EP 4 285 308 B8 and involves a dispute over confidentiality and access to an expert's findings following an inspection and evidence preservation order. The applicant, fiskaly GmbH, sought access to the summary infringement result from the expert Grannemann's detailed description, arguing it contained no trade secrets and that the information asymmetry hindered proper case management. The respondents, SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG, opposed the request, arguing that if the underlying inspection order were found unlawful, all evidence obtained would be inadmissible, and therefore no information should be disclosed until the lawfulness of the order was determined.
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.