Brinkman erlassen
5 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
5 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This case concerns an application by Sun Patent Trust for review of an order concerning interim measures against Roku, Inc. in proceedings involving European Patents EP 2 903 267 and EP 3 200 463. The dispute arose after Roku filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking, among other things, an anti-suit injunction against Sun Patent Trust. The court addressed key questions regarding cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, the necessity of prior cease-and-desist letters before seeking interim measures, and the circumstances under which such warnings are dispensable.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This order concerns an application by Dolby International AB for review of a provisional measures order against Roku, Inc. in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The dispute arose after Roku filed a counterclaim for invalidity in the existing infringement proceedings and subsequently initiated a US lawsuit seeking, among other things, an injunction to prevent Dolby from pursuing the UPC action. The court addressed the question of cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, holding that a prior warning (Abmahnung) is not a prerequisite for provisional measures but that its absence may affect cost allocation, particularly when the respondent immediately offers a cease-and-desist declaration.
ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, in which Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against four ASUS entities. Before the written procedure concluded, Dolby withdrew its infringement action following an out-of-court settlement, and the ASUS defendants sought to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. Both parties agreed that each would bear their own costs and requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The court issued its decision in accordance with the parties' jointly expressed wishes.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, in which Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against several ASUS entities. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its infringement action and the ASUS defendants to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. The court issued an order confirming the withdrawals, that each party bears its own costs, and granting a 60% partial reimbursement of the court fees paid upon filing.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, filed an infringement action on November 30, 2023, against fifteen HP-related entities across Europe, alleging infringement relating to HEVC-capable computers. The order addresses the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the claims (Klagebeschränkung) under Rule 263.1 and .3 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.