Agergaard
35 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
35 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning European Patent EP 2 919 672 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and both parties consented to the withdrawal and to a partial refund of court fees. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff (EUR 6,600).
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This enforcement proceeding before the Mannheim Local Division concerned FUJIFILM Corporation's second application for the imposition of penalties against three Kodak entities for non-compliance with the operative parts of the main decision of 2 April 2025 regarding EP 3 511 174. The Panel found that the Defendants had not fully complied with their obligations to render information, destroy, recall, and remove infringing products, and imposed cumulative penalties totaling 1,720,000 €, with further non-compliance penalties set at 25,000 € per day.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, and HyGear B.V.
Topsoe A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of the respondents ahead of a potential main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the respondents to grant access to an electrically heated hydrogen production plant bearing the inscription 'www.hygear.com' on its outer wall, including the opening of the reactor, subject to various procedural safeguards.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This is a correction order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on November 26, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The order amends address errors contained in a prior order of November 25, 2025, which had granted an application by Topsoe A/S for inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The corrections relate to the registered office addresses of both respondents and the production facility address of SYPOX GmbH.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH & Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH
Topsoe A/S, holder of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, applied for an order of inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The applicant suspected that SYPOX's electrically heated biogas-to-hydrogen plants (SYPOX H-200 and SYPOX H-400) infringed its patent. The court granted the application, ordering the respondents to grant the bailiff and expert unrestricted access to the allegedly infringing hydrogen production plants and related construction and operational documents.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTeK group companies for infringement of European Patent EP 3 972 309 B1, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent null and void for lack of disclosure of origin (the subject matter extending beyond the content of the earlier parent application), dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTek group companies for infringement of European patent EP 3 972 309, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich found that claims 1 and 11 of the patent lacked sufficient disclosure in the earlier parent application, declared those claims invalid, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH and Others
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Following a 30 July 2025 decision that dismissed the infringement action and revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1, the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and the related cost application before the appeal period expired. With the Claimant's consent, the Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear their own costs regarding the counterclaim.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1, in which Headwater Research LLC had initially brought an infringement action against multiple Samsung entities, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. By decision of 30 July 2025, the Court dismissed the infringement action and revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1. Before the appeal period expired, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action with the Defendants' consent, and the Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.Ex Parte
Anordnung
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The court rejected the claimant TRUMPF's applications for admission of new auxiliary requests for patent amendment under R. 30.2 RoP and for admission of a corresponding further submission under R. 36 RoP, finding the claimant's justification insufficient to enable the court to exercise its discretion.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.Inventronics GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1 in an infringement action. In light of ongoing settlement discussions, the court granted a joint request by both parties to stay the proceedings until resumption upon request of one of the parties, pursuant to Rules 295(d) and 296.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
igus GmbH v.Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
Default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 912 243 B1, which protects a compact line guide for clean room applications. The plaintiff, igus GmbH, alleged that the Chinese defendant, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., infringed the patent by offering a 'CPY' line guide at the Hannover Messe and through associated catalog distribution. Because the defendant failed to appear or respond, the court granted the plaintiff's claims in full, including a finding of infringement, an injunction, recall and information orders, and provisional cost reimbursement.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S., Samsung Electronics GmbH
Headwater Research LLC brought an infringement action against four Samsung entities concerning European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1, which relates to wireless end-user devices controlling application network access based on background/foreground states. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1 due to added matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Headwater to bear the costs.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
This case before the Local Division Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 359 858 B1, which was finally revoked during the proceedings. The Claimant (N.V. Nutricia) sought closure of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, while the parties disputed the value of the dispute. The Court set the value of the infringement action at €250,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at €500,000, ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of both proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ and Rule 37.2 RoP, to jointly hear TRUMPF's infringement action and IPG Laser's counterclaim for revocation rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was made for reasons of procedural economy and to allow a unified interpretation of the patent by the same panel for both validity and infringement questions.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This enforcement proceeding arose from a decision of 2 April 2025 in UPC_CFI_365/2023 concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, in which FUJIFILM sought to enforce operative parts requiring the Kodak defendants to provide information, destroy infringing embodiments, recall products, and remove them from channels of commerce. The Mannheim Local Division found that the defendants had failed to comply with these obligations despite proper notification and service, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding lack of warning and insufficient translations. The court imposed a three-pronged penalty regime including a lump-sum payment of €100,000, daily penalties of €2,500 until 4 August 2025, and escalated penalties of €10,000 per day thereafter.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, in Germany and the United Kingdom. The Mannheim Local Division separated the proceedings regarding the UK part of the patent following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court assessed the validity of the UK part as a mere prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect, found the patent invalid, and dismissed the infringement action with costs borne by FUJIFILM.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of 2 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 511 174. The defendants (Kodak entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for information they were required to disclose during enforcement. The court rejected the request, holding that the defendants should have raised confidentiality in the main proceedings, that the main decision already restricted use of the information to the stated purposes, and that no specific risk of misuse was demonstrated.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Quantificare S.A. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Inc., Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l., and Esthetec SAS
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure to decide early, before the close of written proceedings, that it would hear both the infringement action filed by Quantificare S.A. and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA. The decision was made for reasons of procedural economy and to ensure a unified interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 110 069 B1. The Court held that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the applicable foreign law and its application to demonstrate that enforcement of a potential cost order against the US-based Claimant would be unduly burdensome, and also failed to establish any tangible risk of insolvency.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd., Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff partially withdrew the action against Defendant 2 (Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH) following an out-of-court settlement. The court allowed the partial withdrawal, declared the proceedings against Defendant 2 terminated, and ruled on costs in accordance with the parties' agreement.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application by Lionra Technologies Ltd. for retroactive extension of time, alternatively reinstatement, regarding the missed deadline under R. 151 RoP for filing a cost determination application. The court rejected the primary request for retroactive extension of time, holding that R. 9.3(a) RoP only permits the court to decide retroactively on a timely-filed extension request, but granted the alternative request for reinstatement under R. 320.1 RoP, finding that the plaintiff's oversight by two employees within a proper four-eyes deadline control system constituted a reason beyond the party's control.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Kodak entities) for rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a decision dated 2 April 2025 in patent infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 476 616. The Defendants sought to rectify the value in dispute from EUR 15,000,000 to EUR 15,000,000 each for the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (totaling EUR 30,000,000), and alternatively to raise the ceiling for recoverable costs. The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, finding no deviation between the panel's intention and the wording of the decision.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. and Others
This is an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1, brought by Evac Oy against six defendants. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the claimant and defendants 4 to 6 (S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH, Katharina Kiran Singh Kang, and Shaminder Singh Kang) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, while ordering that the proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 (Shanghai VacDrain, VD Solutions GmbH, and Yong Cao) continue.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in proceedings regarding European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'direkt oder indirekt' from claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach to the case heading. The court granted the first correction as a clerical error but rejected the second, holding that parties are not entitled to have all attorneys from the same firm listed in the decision heading.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors with specific anodized aluminum support features. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, added matter, and asserting a public prior use right. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement of the patent as amended, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, disclosure orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174. The court ordered the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent-in-suit because the ECJ decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte), which addressed a fundamental question of European law on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, was only delivered after the oral hearing. The court found it inappropriate to delay the entire decision or hold a second oral hearing, and instead separated the UK-related claims to be dealt with in separate proceedings.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 476 616, addressing the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent. The panel separated the UK-related claims and counterclaims into separate proceedings because a fundamental question of European law concerning international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation was pending before the European Court of Justice (Case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte), and the parties had not had the opportunity to comment on the ECJ's subsequent decision.
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.