Berichtersta
141 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
141 cases indexed | Page 3 of 5
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The plaintiff Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) brought an infringement action against Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH and Omni-Pac GmbH, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together in a joint proceeding.
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1 and addresses applications by both parties for leave to exchange further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in infringement proceedings. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf denied the applications, finding that the plaintiff had failed to file a proper Rule 36 application and instead improperly introduced new arguments on equivalent patent infringement in its rejoinder to the counterclaim for revocation. The court held that the decision to allow further pleadings lies in the discretion of the Rapporteur and requires substantial reasons given the goal of conducting oral hearings within one year of filing.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the defendant's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to file a further pleading in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant sought to introduce a January 6, 2025 decision of the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office, which fully invalidated the corresponding Chinese patent CN201480013981.1 based on the same prior art references. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf, through Presiding Judge Thomas acting as Rapporteur, denied the application, finding it was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese decision without justification, that the decision was submitted only in Chinese rather than the German procedural language, and that allowing late submission would prejudice both the court's and the plaintiff's preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of the court file under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in a preliminary evidence preservation proceeding relating to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The patent holder SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. raised no objection, noting that Chainzone had already been admitted as an intervenor in related proceedings before the Local Chamber Vienna. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering that file inspection be provided subject to redaction of personal data to be identified by SWARCO within ten days.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The parties reached a settlement and jointly filed applications on December 20, 2024, to withdraw the proceedings following the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ruled that each party bears its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 548 648, which relates to a mill for crushing/grinding material, particularly wood chips. Both parties are providers of forestry machinery. The plaintiff, Rematec GmbH & Co KG, as the proprietor of the patent, alleged that the defendant, Europe Forestry B.V., infringed the patent by selling mills marketed as 'Europe Grinders' and 'Europe Chip Mills.' The defendant raised a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim held an oral hearing on November 27, 2024, and rendered its decision on January 31, 2025.
SharkNinja Europe Limited, SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by SharkNinja to suspend the cost assessment proceedings or, alternatively, to extend the time limit for filing a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction against SharkNinja and ordering Dyson to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding when the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 of the Rules of Procedure begins to run and the applicability of Rules 150 and 151 when no main proceedings under Rule 213 are initiated.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEl GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the court over a standalone action for the quantification of damages following a national court judgment establishing patent infringement and liability for damages. The appellant, Fives ECL, sought to quantify damages of EUR 6.5 million against REEL GmbH based on a prior judgment of the Landgericht Düsseldorf finding REEL liable for infringing EP 1 740 740. The Court of Appeal overturned the Local Division Hamburg's decision and held that the court has jurisdiction over such standalone damages quantification actions, including for infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the patent was still in force at that time.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf heard oral arguments on November 26, 2024 and issued its decision on January 14, 2025. The judgment establishes key principles regarding direct and indirect patent infringement, destruction of infringing goods, recall and removal from distribution channels, and permission to publish the decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This cost determination proceedings order concerned the reimbursement of costs from prior interim injunction proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The parties had agreed on the principal amounts of recoverable costs, but Edwards sought additional interest at five percentage points above the base rate under § 247 BGB from the date of filing. The court rejected the interest claim, holding that reimbursable procedural costs and expenses do not bear interest in cost determination proceedings.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC,
The Court of Appeal addressed an application by DISH Technologies and Sling TV for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of their appeal. The appeal had been filed precautionarily against an order of the Local Division Mannheim requiring them to post €800,000 in security for Aylo's costs. The Court of Appeal granted the alternative request, ordering reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees (€900) under R.370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure, but rejected the request for full reimbursement.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 678 321. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd filed an infringement action against three Netgear entities, who filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Both parties agreed to have the infringement action and the invalidity counterclaim heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, and the panel concurred with this request.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants to reject at an early stage the plaintiff's application for leave to amend its claims under Rule 263 RoP, which was based on a conditional application to amend the patent-in-suit (EP2642632) under Rule 30 RoP filed in response to the defendants' counterclaim for revocation. The defendants argued that procedural economy required an early decision on the admissibility of the underlying patent amendment request. The court declined to make a preliminary decision on the substantive admissibility of the claim amendment, holding that such decisions of this magnitude should generally be left to the main proceedings and the oral hearing.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_22/2023) involving European Patent EP4108782, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, against Vizgen, Inc. The dispute centers on Plaintiff Harvard's third request to amend the patent, filed on October 25, 2024, which was rejected by the Rapporteur's order of November 8, 2024. The Local Chamber Hamburg reviewed the order under Rule 333.1 RoP and confirmed the rejection, holding that approximately three months between the alleged reason for the amendment and the filing of the request was too long under Rule 30.2 RoP.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Respondent
This order concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of September 13, 2024, in which the Local Chamber Munich found the Belkin defendants liable for patent infringement of EP 2 867 997 B1 and ordered them to provide information under Article 67 EPGÜ. The court addressed two key issues: whether the claimant's request for information in electronic form was sufficiently specific, and the nature of coercive penalties under Article 82 EPGÜ. The court held that electronic form must be specifically requested, and that coercive penalties serve both coercive and punitive functions.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 3 764 271. The plaintiff Hand Held Products, Inc. filed suit on November 6, 2024, alleging infringement by the defendant Scandit AG, which is based in Switzerland. The order resolves a discrepancy between the actual date of service (November 20, 2024) and the date automatically recorded in the Case Management System (November 23, 2024), which was based on an inapplicable service fiction under Rule 271.6 of the Rules of Procedure.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This case concerns an order by the Court of Appeal regarding coercive penalties in proceedings involving European Patent 4 108 782. The court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction order retroactively removes the legal basis for subsequent decisions ordering payment of coercive penalties for alleged violations occurring before the setting aside. The Court of Appeal held that the setting aside of a first-instance preliminary injunction order under Art. 75(1) EPGÜ and Rule 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the order is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning, thereby eliminating the legal basis for any subsequent coercive penalty decisions.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal order concerning an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 2 043 492, which covers a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a specific handle arrangement. Dyson Technology Limited, as the patent proprietor, sought interim measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal reviewed the first instance decision and, after balancing the probabilities, concluded that it was not more likely than not that the patent was being infringed. The appeal order thus turned on the assessment of the likelihood of patent infringement in the context of interim relief.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on November 22, 2024, rejecting the defendants' application for a stay of proceedings and cancellation of the scheduled pronouncement date, as well as their alternative application for postponement of the pronouncement to at least December 6, 2024. The court found that the requirements for a stay under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure were not met, particularly because there was no joint application from both parties, as the plaintiff had expressly opposed the stay. The case concerns European Patent EP 2 568 724.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought an infringement action against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Court of First Instance rendered its decision on November 22, 2024, following an oral hearing on October 7 and 8, 2024. A redacted version of the decision was subsequently ordered on February 6, 2025, after the parties were given the opportunity to comment on confidential information.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought leave under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file additional submissions after learning that the defendants were also offering the 'Barryvox S' (in addition to the previously accused 'Barryvox S2') with voice control functionality. The court denied the request, finding no basis to permit further submissions, noting that the plaintiff is already protected by confirmed provisional measures orders regarding the 'Barryvox S2' and retains remedies for any potential violations.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.,
The Court of Appeal issued an order concerning Belkin's application for suspensive effect (stay) of a first instance order dated September 13, 2024, in a patent infringement action brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. regarding EP 2 867 997. The appeal involved both the Belkin corporate entities and individual managing directors. The court addressed the requirements for applications for suspensive effect, the standard for granting such effect, and the question of whether managing directors of an infringing company can be held liable as intermediaries under Article 63 EPGÜ.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Munich addressed the procedural consequences following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 2 839 083. After the applicant withdrew its request following the oral hearing, the defendants argued they had a legitimate interest in a substantive decision due to defense costs and the imminent filing of a main action. The court held that no legitimate interest existed for a decision after withdrawal, as such a decision would have no res judicata effect and could not prevent new proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College, v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is an order from the Local Division Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4108782 held by President and Fellows of Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen, Inc. filed a request under Rule 333.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking review by the full panel of the reporting judge's order of August 15, 2024, which had rejected Vizgen's requests for production of documents. The disputed documents relate to non-technical objections, specifically allegations of abuse of rights (Rechtsmissbrauch), and were originally produced in US parallel proceedings.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an application by SharkNinja to admit new evidence (FBD 29) consisting of two annexes to a brief filed by Dyson's representative in a parallel US proceeding. SharkNinja argued the evidence was relevant to the appeal because it contained Dyson's interpretation of the patent feature regarding an elongate handle, which could undermine Dyson's contradictory denial of disclosure of the 'Power Source' feature in the present proceedings. Dyson opposed the application, arguing the evidence was not decisive and that the submission was culpably delayed.
Sling TV L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680. The claimants, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., sought an order under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of source code of media players used under Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Safari browsers by certain defendants operating streaming services. The underlying main proceedings concern alleged indirect patent infringement in multiple European countries, with the defendants having filed counterclaims for invalidity.
Sling TV L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an information order against several AYLO entities and related companies regarding the encoding and coding scheme of video files available through their streaming services. The underlying main proceedings involve alleged indirect patent infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680 in multiple European countries, with the defendants having filed counterclaims for invalidity. The rapporteur judge Böttger issued the order in the Local Chamber Mannheim.
Sling TV L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Respondent
The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., sought an order under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure requiring defendants AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC to disclose information about which Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) they use or have used since August 28, 2019 for delivering video files through their streaming services, the locations of CDN servers, and how the video files are encoded and split. The underlying main proceedings concern alleged indirect patent infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680 in multiple European territories, with defendants having filed counterclaims for invalidity. The order was issued by the reporting judge Böttger of the Local Chamber Mannheim.
CAN Srl Airxcel Europe v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendant, CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, to extend the deadlines for filing a preliminary objection and a statement of defense/counterclaim in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. The defendant argued that service of the statement of claim at a trade fair was ineffective. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected both extension requests, holding that the strict time regime of the Rules of Procedure permits extensions only in exceptional cases, and the defendant failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstances.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This order concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding European Patent EP 2 043 492. Dyson Technology Limited, the respondent, requested that several grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja concerning validity attacks be disregarded as they were allegedly not properly specified in the Statement of Appeal. SharkNinja opposed the request, arguing that the grounds were indeed contained in the Statement of Appeal through references to earlier submissions and specific paragraphs. The text of the order is truncated and does not include the final ruling.
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.