Litigation
at Hamburg (DE) Local Division
73 litigation decisions from Hamburg (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
73 cases | Page 2 of 3
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
The defendants (Nintendo) requested that certain sales and profit figures in their Statement of Defense and Exhibit BP08 be declared confidential under Rule 262A RoP, with access restricted to two named persons from the claimant. The claimant (Malikie Innovations) sought to extend access to two additional employees and challenged the scope of the confidentiality order regarding information obtained from third parties. The Court granted the confidentiality request, extended access to the two additional claimant employees, and held that the claimant bears the burden of verifying whether third parties disclosing such information are bound by confidentiality agreements.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. et al.
The Hamburg Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application for an order requiring the Claimant to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP in a patent infringement action concerning EP4092759. The court held that the Defendants failed to provide concrete evidence that enforcement of a UPC cost decision in China would be particularly difficult, and that the Claimant's domicile in a non-EU country alone cannot justify ordering security for costs.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others (including MediaTek Inc.)
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court against Xiaomi entities and MediaTek Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 792 100. MediaTek, which is domiciled in Taiwan (not a UPC Member State), filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1(a) RoP challenging the UPC's international jurisdiction. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(2) and Art. 7(2) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, and that questions of MediaTek's liability as a joint perpetrator are matters for the merits, not jurisdiction.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought a preliminary injunction against Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg, alleging that Speed Care's SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing infringed European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1, which protects clay-based hemostatic agents and devices. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by claim 1 of the patent in suit, and therefore could not establish infringement.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Systems GmbH
Lionra Technologies Ltd. sued Cisco Systems, Inc. and its German subsidiary Cisco Systems GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 2 201 740 B1, which relates to fast packet processing in wireless networks. Cisco filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Hamburg dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, leaving the patent in its granted form, and ordered the plaintiff to bear 40% and the defendants 60% of the costs.
Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE – Withdrawal of Cost Assessment Application v.Ex Parte
This order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court addressed the withdrawal of a cost assessment application filed by Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. While the main infringement and revocation proceedings had been appealed to the Court of Appeal, the cost assessment application remained pending at first instance. The Rapporteur held that the first-instance court retained jurisdiction over the withdrawal of the cost assessment application, and that the Rapporteur alone had original competence under Rule 156.2 RoP to allow the withdrawal.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber of Hamburg concerning patent EP2642632. The Rapporteur rejected the defendants' (Xiaomi entities) request for early dismissal of the plaintiff's (Nera Innovations Ltd.) conditional requests to amend the patent under R. 30 RoP and corresponding amendments to the claim requests under R. 263 RoP. The court held that the substantive examination of these amendment requests should be reserved for the panel's final decision at the oral hearing, rather than decided as a preliminary matter under R. 334(h) RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning EP4108782. The court confirmed the judge-rapporteur's rejection of Harvard's third request to amend the patent, holding that under Rule 30.2 RoP, a delay of approximately three months between the reason for the amendment (the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion of August 2, 2024) and the filing of the request (October 25, 2024) was too long. The court ruled that the patent proprietor's subjective expectations regarding procedural delay are irrelevant, and the question must be assessed objectively.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V.
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court addressed a preliminary objection filed by Defendants Yves Prevoo (managing director) and Easee Holding B.V. (parent company), who argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over claims based on personal/director liability and tort. The court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that alleged patent infringement constitutes a matter of tort under Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, giving the UPC jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and that questions of director liability are matters of merit rather than jurisdiction.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning the correct date of service of a patent infringement claim. The court determined that the statement of claim filed on November 6, 2024, regarding EP 3 764 271, was served on the defendant in Switzerland on November 20, 2024, rather than the November 23, 2024 date automatically recorded by the Case Management System.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, and MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This case concerns a confidentiality application (R. 262A RoP) filed by the Claimant Daedalus Prime LLC in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP2792100. The Claimant sought to restrict access to certain statements regarding the transfer of the patent suit and a partially redacted Patent Transfer Agreement to attorneys' eyes only. The Court balanced the parties' interests and granted access to two specific in-house legal counsels of the Xiaomi Defendants, while denying access to a third in-house counsel responsible for technical analysis.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This case concerns a confidentiality application (R. 262A RoP) filed by the Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, seeking to restrict access to certain documents filed in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant sought 'attorneys' eyes only' protection for statements regarding the transfer of the patent suit and a partially redacted Patent Transfer Agreement. The Court granted the confidentiality request but extended access to two specific in-house legal counsels of the Defendants, finding that while the Defendants' waivers in other proceedings did not bind them in UPC proceedings, access should be limited to legal counsel involved in legal analysis rather than technical analysis.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE & Nintendo Co., Ltd.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. filed an infringement action against Nintendo of Europe AG and Nintendo Co., Ltd. concerning EP2579551, but had erroneously named Defendant 1 as 'Nintendo of Europe AG' instead of 'Nintendo of Europe SE,' the latter being the universal successor. The Court granted the rectification of the defendant's name, finding no unreasonable prejudice since Nintendo of Europe SE had taken over all assets, premises, email addresses, and the VAT number of the former AG. The Court also determined that the date of service on the corrected defendant was deemed effected on 17 October 2024, serving as the starting point for the time-limit to file the Statement of Defence.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP4108782 (owned by Harvard College). The defendant Vizgen sought an order under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure requiring the claimants to produce specific documents and deposition transcripts previously disclosed in parallel US proceedings in Delaware. The court granted the production request in part, ordering the production of numerous designated documents and transcripts, while imposing strict 'Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only' confidentiality protections.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning a confidentiality request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4108782. The plaintiffs sought to restrict access to exhibit BP 34 (a license agreement and related agreements) to only the defendant's legal representatives under an 'Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only' regime. The court granted the request, finding that the parties had mutually agreed to a confidentiality regime comparable to the Protective Order in the parallel US proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning a confidentiality request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4108782. The plaintiffs sought to restrict access to exhibit BP 34 (a license agreement and related agreements) to outside attorneys only, and the court granted the request, finding that the parties had mutually agreed to a confidentiality regime comparable to the Protective Order in the parallel US proceedings.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. & Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This case concerns a panel review of a confidentiality order in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to extend access to confidential information to two US-based attorneys and to future confidential submissions, arguing that excluding them violated its fundamental judicial rights. The Panel rejected the application to dismiss the procedural orders, upheld the restriction on access by the US attorneys, and granted the Defendants' request to replace the redacted version of the Statement of Defence, while granting leave to appeal.
Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Access under R. 262.1(b) RoP – Ballinno B.V. v.UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH)
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to the written pleadings and evidence filed in a concluded provisional measures proceeding (Ballinno B.V. v UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) concerning EP1944067. The Defendants did not oppose access but requested that grey-highlighted technical data be kept confidential as trade secrets. The Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) granted the application, providing access to redacted versions of the substantive filings while ordering that the highlighted technical information be treated as strictly confidential.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought interim injunctive relief against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of European Patent EP 3 197 316 B1, which covers an oral cleaning system (electric toothbrush) providing motivational feedback to users. After Yunding had previously given a cease and desist declaration acknowledging infringement but was found still exhibiting the infringing 'Oclean' toothbrushes at IFA 2024 in Berlin, the Local Chamber Hamburg granted the interim measures, ordering Yunding to cease offering, selling, importing, and possessing the infringing products across UPC member states, with penalties of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH & F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., & VitalAire GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 196 231, brought by Roche against Tandem Diabetes Care and VitalAire relating to the t:slim X2 insulin pump. The defendants sought a stay of the infringement proceedings pending parallel revocation actions before the Central Division Paris. The Local Division Hamburg dismissed both the request for a stay and the claimant's request to hear the infringement and revocation actions together, finding that the claimant's interest in continuing the proceedings outweighed the defendants' interest in a stay.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent EP 1 612 910 B1, which relates to a power control system for electronic circuits, alleging that Tesla's Model Y vehicles using AMD Ryzen processors infringed the patent. Tesla filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially revoked the patent in its main request but maintained it in a modified auxiliary request form, finding partial infringement and allocating costs 85% to Avago and 15% to Tesla.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP4108782. The defendant Vizgen sought production of five categories of documents under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which had been disclosed in parallel US proceedings but were restricted under a US Protective Order. The court granted only the request for production of the license agreement between Harvard and ReadCoor, Inc. dated September 9, 2019, and rejected the remaining four requests as either lacking specificity or relating to competition law matters outside the court's jurisdiction.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A., GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS
Procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by AGFA NV against nine Gucci group entities concerning European Patent EP3388490. The defendants jointly sought to protect as trade secrets certain information contained in their Statement of Defence and Rejoinder relating to the Gucci group's internal organization, supply chain, and sales data. The Hamburg Local Division granted the application, classifying the identified information as confidential under R. 262A RoP and restricting its use outside the present proceedings.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Others v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (Language of Proceedings Order)
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH filed an infringement action against Tandem Diabetes Care entities and VitalAire GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg based on European Patent EP 2196231. The defendants requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that when balancing of interests is equal between international parties, the position of the defendant is the decisive factor.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH regarding EP2792100. The Xiaomi defendants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation, citing the need to obtain technical information from MediaTek under restrictive confidentiality obligations. The court rejected the request, finding that the defendants had not demonstrated exceptional reasons justifying an extension beyond the already adequate time limits provided under the Rules of Procedure.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 covering an antibody for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), sought a preliminary injunction against multiple Amgen entities to stop the marketing of BEKEMV®, a biosimilar of Alexion's Soliris® (eculizumab). While the court found that infringement of claim 2 could be established, it dismissed the application for provisional measures because it was not convinced with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid, particularly given the unresolved question of claim construction regarding SEQ ID NO:4 and the likelihood that the EPO opposition division might revoke the patent.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Samsung Bioepis to prevent the marketing of Epysqli®, a biosimilar of Alexion's Soliris® (eculizumab), alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 relating to antibodies binding complement component 5 (C5) for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. While the court found that infringement of claim 2 could be established, it dismissed the application for provisional measures because it was not convinced with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid, given the likelihood that the EPO opposition division might revoke the patent.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg in a patent infringement action concerning a Rule 190.1 RoP application by the Defendants (Tesla entities) seeking to compel the Plaintiff (Avago) to produce Board of Directors resolutions related to the authorization of the patent transfer and power of attorney. The Court granted the application in part, ordering production of three of the four requested documents relating to the authorization chain and the transfer of the patent from the transferor corporation, but denied the request concerning the recipient entity (Avago General IP).
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 relating to a method and system for detecting an offside situation using sound signals, sought a preliminary injunction against UEFA and Kinexon entities to prevent the use of 'Connected Ball Technology' at the UEFA European Football Championship 2024. The Hamburg Local Division dismissed the application, finding that Ballinno had not acted with sufficient urgency and had failed to sufficiently prove infringement, as the Connected Ball Technology uses acceleration measurement rather than the sound signal sensing required by the patent claims.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
This case concerns an application for provisional measures before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP1944067. The defendants (UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) filed three applications seeking security for costs, an increased value of dispute, and allocation of a technically qualified judge. The court ordered the claimant Ballinno B.V. to provide security of €56,000, set the preliminary value of the dispute at €500,000, and dismissed the request for a technically qualified judge.
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.