Litigation
at The Hague (NL) Local Division
54 litigation decisions from The Hague (NL) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
54 cases | Page 2 of 2
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. Et al
Infringement Action
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. Et al
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance addresses several applications in a patent infringement dispute between GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (claimant) and fifteen Moderna entities (defendants) concerning European Patent EP2590626 B1. The order primarily deals with GSK's Rule 176 application requesting that the Court order the in-person hearing of five party experts (two from GSK and three from Moderna) at the oral proceedings. Moderna opposes the application, arguing that the extensive written expert reports already provide sufficient technical background and that the decision to hear further expert evidence lies at the Court's discretion. The order also addresses preparations for the interim conference scheduled for 11 June 2026.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Krahn Chemie Benelux BV
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This procedural order concerns the rectification of an obvious error in a prior order dated 1 May 2026. The parties agreed that the Defendants' application under R. 190 erroneously referred to 'Acer' where 'Vectis' (the Intervener) was intended, as evidenced by the use of 'Dolby and/or Vectis' elsewhere in the application. The Court, applying R. 353 RoP, rectified the error by replacing 'Dolby and Acer' with 'Dolby and Vectis' on pages 3 and 7 of the earlier order.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Krahn Chemie Benelux BV
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC obtained an ex parte preservation of evidence and inspection order against Krahn Chemie Benelux BV and two Italian defendants, alleging indirect infringement of EP3286270 relating to an anti-skinning composition containing at least 98 wt% of 2-pentanone oxime. Krahn filed a review of the ex parte order under R.197.3 RoP, seeking revocation of the order, return of seized evidence, and provision of security. The Court dismissed Krahn's requests to revoke the order,
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague addresses multiple procedural applications in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities concerning European Patent EP3079153. The order deals with Acer's application for production of comparable licence agreements under Rule 190, requests for a confidentiality regime under Rules 262A and 262.2, the intervention of Vectis IP Ltd., and Dolbys request for an extension of deadlines. The subject matter includes an infringement action, a counterclaim for revocation, and a counterclaim for rate-setting.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153. The order summarizes a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026, which was conducted online behind closed doors due to the confidential nature of the discussions, including matters related to the patent pool administrator Vectis. Key issues discussed included ongoing pool negotiations, a Rule 190 request by Acer, the applicability of a prior FRAND-related decision, and Acer's consideration of filing a counterclaim for rate setting against both Dolby and Vectis.
IQIP Holding B.V. v.TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V.
Infringement Action
IQIP Holding B.V. v.TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V.
In infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP2148123, the defendants alleged public prior use based on two 2008 projects (Rhyl Flats and Gunfleet Sands) in which plugs allegedly embodying all features of the patent were supplied by IHC Handling Systems (later merged into IQIP B.V., a subsidiary of the claimant). The defendants filed a request under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure to order IQIP Holding B.V. and IQIP B.V. to produce extensive technical documentation regarding the prior plugs and assemblies. The Court partially awarded the request, finding it too broad and therefore limiting the scope of the production order.
Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH
Application for provisional measures
Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH
Stratasys, Inc. sought provisional measures against Bambulab GmbH before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 964 450, which relates to additive manufacturing methods for printing 3D parts with purge towers. The dispute concerned BambuLab's H2C 3D printer, which Stratasys claimed infringed the patent. The Court dismissed the application, finding that (indirect) infringement could not be established with the required certainty, and ordered Stratasys to pay Bambulab EUR 112,000 in costs.
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag applied for preservation of evidence under Rule 192 against WEPA Nederland B.V in connection with European patent EP 3 289 139 B1, which relates to tissue paper comprising pulp fibers originating from Miscanthus. The Local Division of The Hague granted the application, allowing the seizure of descriptions, documents, and samples at WEPA's premises in Swalmen, The Netherlands. The court applied specific Dutch national rules and practice for seizure, including provisions on password-protected drives and cloud-stored documents, and ruled that the Applicant's representatives may not be present during the seizure while Defendant's personnel may be questioned but cannot be compelled to answer under penalty.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
Infringement Action
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-14) under reference UPC_6B42A85967, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oleading B.V. Et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
Infringement Action
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
This is an order from the Court of First Instance, Local Division The Hague, concerning European Patent EP2061230 owned by Maxell, Ltd. The order records decisions taken at an interim conference held on 10 April 2026 in proceedings between Maxell (claimant/defendant in counterclaim) and multiple Samsung entities (defendants/claimants in counterclaim). The order sets the value of the infringement action at EUR 1,500,000 and the counterclaim action at EUR 2,000,000, clarifies the parties' respective requests, and addresses pending objections relating to the de-facto-FRAND defence and new invalidity attacks.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. al
Infringement Action
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. al
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague addresses confidentiality and evidence production issues in patent infringement proceedings brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. against multiple TCL entities concerning European patents EP3103116 and EP2420029. The order deals with Philips' application to reject TCL's confidentiality request and evidence production request, as well as Philips' own request to classify certain information as confidential under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The matter involves competing confidentiality regimes proposed by both parties regarding licence-related information and commercially sensitive data exchanged during the proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This is a preliminary order from the Local Division The Hague concerning a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026 in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and multiple Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153, which relates to the OPUS standard. The hearing addressed issues including the patent pool administered by Vectis, potential counterclaims for rate setting against Vectis, and the applicability of FRAND/Huawei v ZTE framework given that the patent at issue is part of the pool but not subject to a FRAND declaration. The presiding judge urged parties to continue negotiations and noted that a parallel OPUS case in the Dusseldorf Local Division expected a decision in mid-March 2026 that could serve as a benchmark.
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.