Berichtersta
162 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
162 cases indexed | Page 2 of 6
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning an application by MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements referenced by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in the context of infringement proceedings regarding EP 3 567 731. The court partially granted the application, ordering Huawei to produce the license agreements it had identified on pages 2 and 3 of its August 15, 2025 submission with its reply to the statement of defense, while rejecting the request for two additional agreements and for ancillary agreements/amendments.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager GmbH, Johann Windhager, Stefan Windhager
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court found that Windhager GmbH directly infringed EP 2 223 589 B1, which protects a bed/green area edging with lockable sheet metal strips, by offering and selling such edgings on its website. The court held that offering or supplying all components of a patented product designed for simple assembly at the place of use constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) EPGÜ. The counterclaim for revocation of the patent was dismissed, and the claims against the individual managing directors were rejected.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2. The court granted the respondents' request to classify certain information as confidential but rejected their objection to allowing the applicant's managing director, Mr. Tor Peters, access to that information, finding that the applicant's interest in responding to arguments based on the confidential data outweighed the respondents' interest in restricting access.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and Blankenhorn GmbH
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court addressed the allocation of costs in provisional measures proceedings under Article 62 EPGÜ concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835, after the matter became moot between the applicant Faro Technologies and the second respondent Blankenhorn GmbH. Both parties agreed the proceedings were resolved, but disputed who should bear the costs. The court declared the proceedings terminated under Rule 360 RoP and ordered Blankenhorn GmbH to bear the costs, finding that the applicant had reasonable grounds to seek court intervention and that Blankenhorn's cease-and-desist undertaking was insufficient.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on August 21, 2025, rejecting the defendant's request to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense by one month in a SEP infringement action concerning European Patent EP2380167. The defendant argued that the technical complexity of the MPEG-4 audio standard, the need to prepare a nullity counterclaim, the complexity of the FRAND defense involving pool negotiations, international litigation coordination, and school holidays of key personnel justified an extension. The court held that the three-month deadline under Rule 23 RoP is already calibrated to accommodate such circumstances, including vacation periods, and that the defendant had been aware of the licensing demands since 2017.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH & expert e-Commerce GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on August 21, 2025, disregarding a post-hearing submission filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. after the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. Viosys had submitted a Rule 9 filing along with a post-hearing brief summarizing its arguments in response to the court's introduction. The court held that under Rule 36 RoP, further submissions require prior court approval and are not permitted after the oral hearing, when the case is ready for decision.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1, which relates to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Ronny Thomas on August 21, 2025, concludes the interim proceedings in a combined infringement action and revocation counterclaim between Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) as plaintiff and two Omni-Pac entities as defendants. The court set out its preliminary view on the relevant skilled person, provided detailed feature breakdowns for patent claims 1 and 6, and issued preparatory directions for the oral hearing.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B1. The applicant Occlutech GmbH sought interim measures against the respondents Lepu Medical entities, who raised both infringement and validity objections. The court ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel under Art. 8(5) sentence 2 EPGÜ and R. 34 RoP, with the consent of all parties.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patents EP 3 398 487, EP 3 281 569, and EP 3 610 762. The court decided, with the agreement of both parties, to hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ, making an early decision on the course of action before the conclusion of the written procedure.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 548 898 B1, in which the court decided to add a technically qualified judge to the panel in interim measures proceedings. The respondent had challenged both infringement and the validity of the patent in its opposition to the application for interim measures, leading the presiding judge to conclude that early addition of a technically qualified judge was appropriate and necessary.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (Confidentiality Order)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 1, 2025, concerning requests for confidentiality and access/use restrictions in an appeal arising from a patent infringement action. The court partially granted the confidentiality requests of STRABAG and its intervener Chainzone, classifying certain information and annexes as confidential trade secrets under Art. 58 EPCA, while rejecting certain requests as inadmissible because they were first raised in the appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted in first instance.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order threatening the respondent with coercive fines of up to EUR 30,000 per day for non-compliance with a prior information disclosure order. The applicant, Aesculap AG, had obtained an order on July 10, 2025 against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) regarding European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, and subsequently notified its intention to enforce the order in full, requesting the respondent to provide information within one month.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Interdigital CE Patent Holdings SAS v.The Walt Disney Company and Others
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order addressing the respondents' refusal to acknowledge service of an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) previously granted on May 27, 2025. The court found that the respondents' legal representatives could not limit their power of attorney to evade service while simultaneously making substantive representations in the proceedings. The court ordered service by court bailiff, directed the representatives to acknowledge receipt and register in the CMS within two weeks, and threatened a coercive fine of €100,000 for non-compliance.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Aesculap AG, as applicant, sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe). The presiding judge issued indications in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025, including a proposed feature breakdown of patent claim 1 relating to a cutting tool of a surgical, torque-transmitting instrument.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 602 692. The appeal was filed by ILME against an order of the Local Division Munich rejecting ILME's objection under R. 19.1(a) RoP in a patent infringement action brought by PHOENIX CONTACT. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of the infringement action, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot under R. 360 RoP without a costs order.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Knaus Tabbert's objection (Gegenvorstellung) against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect of its appeal. The court held that an objection under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which merely contests the reasoning of the rejecting order, is inadmissible, as Rule 9.1 governs procedural management measures and does not permit the alteration of final procedural orders.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 892 442 B1 in provisional measures proceedings. The respondent's requests for simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing and for permission to participate via video conference were only partially granted: the respondent was allowed to hire an interpreter at its own cost, but the costs were not to be treated as procedural costs, and the blanket request for video conference participation was rejected.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 2 479 680, relating to a method for presenting a rate-adaptive data stream. DISH Technologies and Sling TV (part of a telecommunications/satellite TV group) sued several entities of the Aylo adult entertainment group for alleged literal and equivalent indirect infringement based on the 'Auto' playback quality function in their streaming services. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The patent expired by lapse of time during the proceedings, and the court addressed issues of equivalence, the removal of dependent claims, and the appropriate number of auxiliary requests.
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.
Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a coercive fine (Zwangsgeld) imposed on Belkin for non-compliance with an information order related to the infringement of Philips' European Patent EP 2 867 997. The Court of Appeal reduced the coercive fine from €46,000 to €42,000, ordered a partial refund, and adjusted the cost allocation between the parties, while rejecting the further-reaching claims of both sides.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH)
This order concerns an application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., as intervener supporting defendant STRABAG, for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Vienna. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, finding that Chainzone failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision was manifestly incorrect or that fundamental procedural rights were violated. The substantive issues regarding patent claim interpretation and infringement will be addressed in the appeal proceedings.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
This is a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a first-instance decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The first-instance court had found that Knaus Tabbert infringed European Patent EP 3 356 109 (relating to a vehicle frame with foam resin structural parts) and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and provisional damages. The Court of Appeal rejected all of Knaus Tabbert's requests, holding that ordering security for enforcement is discretionary and that facts requiring such security must be raised at first instance.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The court decided to add a technically qualified judge to the panel in proceedings for interim measures, after the respondent challenged the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. Neither party objected to the addition within the given deadline.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a dispute over the admissibility of arguments regarding auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A in patent amendment proceedings. The defendants (Xiaomi entities) sought to have certain arguments from the plaintiff's reply disregarded as untimely. The court rejected the defendants' request, holding that the plaintiff's reference to earlier explanations for combined auxiliary requests was sufficient under Rule 30.1(b) RoP, and that further deepening of arguments in the reply was permissible under Rule 32.3 RoP.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Henle Baumaschinentechnik GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 770 330 B1, in which the court granted the claimant's application for an extension of time limits under Rule 9(3) RoP. The claimant had received a USB stick containing key annexes (MW 3 to MW 5, MW 17, and MW 27) only on April 15, 2025, nearly two weeks after the defendant's late submission to the court registry, justifying the extension of deadlines for reply to the statement of defense and counterclaim for revocation from May 28, 2025 to June 16, 2025.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of trade secrets and confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court classified certain financial information submitted by the defendant as confidential and restricted access to a limited number of persons on the plaintiff's side. The plaintiff raised no objections to the classification, and the order was issued by mutual agreement of the parties.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 466 498 B1. The court granted the plaintiff's application under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information, classifying certain cost-related details (invoice numbers, hourly rates, hours worked) submitted in cost determination proceedings as confidential. The court found the plaintiff's interest in confidentiality outweighed the defendants' interest in full access, particularly since the plaintiff did not seek to restrict the circle of entitled persons but only to prevent disclosure to third parties.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. Following a January 14, 2025 decision that largely upheld the infringement claim and dismissed the defendants' revocation counterclaim, the defendants sought recovery of 9,732.21 EUR in costs. The court found the defendants had erroneously used a consolidated dispute value of 2,000,000 EUR instead of the 1,000,000 EUR value for the infringement claim alone, and awarded only 4,866.11 EUR in recoverable costs.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The court addressed two key issues: whether the use of multiple lawyers and patent attorneys on one side affects cost recoverability, and whether costs from preliminary injunction proceedings are separately recoverable from the main proceedings. The court held that multiple representatives do not bar cost recovery as long as no additional costs are generated, and that the cost caps for interim proceedings and main proceedings must be determined separately.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The defendants (expert companies) sought to recover €111,000 in costs after the patent was revoked and the infringement action was dismissed. The court rejected the cost assessment application as inadmissible because it was filed more than one month after the decision was served, as required by Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure.
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.