Bessaud
10 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
10 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. Et al.
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP1969839, brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of both actions under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure, along with a 40% reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered a 20% reimbursement of court fees to each side, dismissing the request for a higher reimbursement percentage.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA. a. o.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA and five of its European subsidiaries concerning European patent EP 3 756 767 B1, which relates to instruments and methods for detecting biological analytes. The Düsseldorf Local Division bifurcated the case, referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, which amended the patent to maintain only two claims. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding no direct or indirect infringement of the amended claims by the challenged VIDAS 3 instrument and related reagent strips and Solid Phase Receptacles, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co.,Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court upheld a judge-rapporteur's order denying the claimant's application for leave to change its claim to add an auxiliary request asserting infringement by equivalence for additional patent features. The defendants had requested a panel review under R. 333 RoP, arguing the reasoning was disadvantageous to them. The panel found the review admissible but rejected it on the merits, confirming that extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 did not alter the nature or scope of the dispute.
CeraCon GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns a request for review of a judge-rapporteur's order that had dismissed CeraCon GmbH's application to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413 by introducing a new novelty attack based on Euro-PCT application EP 3 868 480 A1. The panel confirmed the earlier order, holding that the amendment was excluded under R. 263.2(a) RoP because CeraCon failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the prior art. The request for review was rejected.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG, Cybex Retail GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 905 615. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure to jointly hear the patent infringement action brought by Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. against the Cybex entities and the counterclaim for revocation, rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was made for reasons of efficiency and to ensure that validity and infringement are decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) UPCA to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, where a revocation action was already pending, while proceeding with the infringement action. The Claimant requested the referral and the Defendants did not object, leading the Panel to treat the matter as a unanimous request.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
This case concerns a rectification of a scheduling order in an infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court identified a typographical error in Item 4 of the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025 and ordered its correction to accurately reflect the oral hearing arrangements. The corrected Item 4 specifies that the oral hearing is scheduled for 15 January 2026 at 9:00 a.m., to be held in person in Munich.
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs. The Court allowed both withdrawals and declared all proceedings closed.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed an application by the Defendants (Magna entities) for rectification of an earlier order dated 31 October 2024, which had granted provisional measures against them in favor of the Applicant (Valeo Electrification) concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Defendants sought three corrections: adding the BMW model '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the exemption list, clarifying that a French vindication action also covered the German and Slovak parts of the patent, and correcting a statement about the parties' agreement to update a list. The Court found no obvious slips warranting rectification under R. 353 RoP and dismissed the application.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned an application for provisional measures by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 393 417 B1, directed against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The parties reached a settlement during the oral hearing, which the court confirmed pursuant to Rule 365.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The court also ordered a 20% refund of court fees to the Applicant and set the value of the application at 4,000,000 EUR.
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.