Brinkman
50 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
50 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. (ABM), proprietor of European Patent EP 2 437 696 B2 relating to wearable position therapy devices for treating sleep disorders, sued Koninklijke Philips N.V. and related entities for infringement of the patent with their NightBalance device. Philips counterclaimed for revocation, alleging lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, added matter, and insufficiency of disclosure. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) revoked the patent in its entirety as obvious over prior art JP H03-49748 A in combination with common general knowledge, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered ABM to pay costs.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al.
This case before the Local Division The Hague concerned an infringement claim by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited regarding European Patent EP1969839, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their actions. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 20% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
Infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning European Patent EP4146335. The claimant, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH, requested withdrawal of the action pursuant to Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure after reaching a settlement with the defendant. The defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and found no need for a cost decision.
XXX v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. / MicroTech Medical (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd., et al.
An unnamed applicant sought access to the case file of UPC_CFI_830/2025, a provisional measures action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against MicroTech Medical and six other defendants concerning EP 3960072. The applicant claimed to represent an unnamed competitor in the continuous glucose measurement (CGM) device field needing a freedom-to-operate analysis. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficiently specific interest to override the integrity of the fast-tracked proceedings.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v.Molecular Instruments, Inc.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc., proprietor of European patents EP1910572 and EP2500439 relating to RNAscope in situ hybridization technology for detecting nucleic acids in individual cells, sued Molecular Instruments, Inc. for patent infringement regarding its HCR (Hybridization Chain Reaction) products. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found both patents valid, dismissing the Defendant's counterclaim for revocation, but held that the Defendant's HCR products did not infringe the patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spolka z o.o.
Anordnung
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al.
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities concerning European Patent EP1969839. The court set the value of the dispute at €12 million, granted a confidentiality club, and addressed various procedural matters including late-filed prior art references and parallel litigation in multiple jurisdictions.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Abbott Diabetes Care sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini alleging infringement of European patent EP 3 988 471 (relating to displays for a medical device) by Sinocare's GlucoMen iCan continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, which Menarini distributes in Europe. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) dismissed the application, finding that the defendants' CGM system more likely than not does not infringe independent claims 1 and 14 of the patent because event data icons are not included in the timeline graph as required by the claims. Abbott was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 as an interim award of costs.
Amycel LLC v.XXX
Amycel LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 relating to brown mushrooms for commercial production, brought an infringement action against a Polish defendant for selling a competing brown mushroom strain called 'Cayene'. The defendant failed to file a timely Statement of Defence, leading to a decision by default after a Rule 275 order. The Court confirmed the orders previously granted in provisional measures proceedings, finding that the mushroom strain was not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC and that infringement was established.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Abbott Diabetes Care sought provisional measures before the Unified Patent Court against Sinocare and Menarini concerning European patent EP 4 344 633 for 'Analyte Sensor Assemblies' related to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. Abbott alleged that the GlucoMen iCan CGM system, manufactured by Sinocare and distributed by Menarini in Europe, infringed its patent. The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding Abbott had established a strong prima facie case of infringement, the patent appeared valid, urgency existed, and the balance of interests favored Abbott.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1, which relates to metal sintering preparations for connecting electronic components. The court maintained the patent in amended form, partially allowing the revocation counterclaim, but dismissed the infringement action. Costs were split 40% to the defendant and 60% to the plaintiff.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1 relating to metal sintering preparations for connecting components in electronics. The plaintiff (Heraeus Electronics) brought an infringement action against the defendant (Vibrantz GmbH), while the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court partially revoked the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and addressed the binding effect of a prior final judgment from the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) that had maintained the German part of the patent in amended form.
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. v.Wasombouw B.V., Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, Bega Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co. KG, Bega BBK Sp. z o.o. Sp. K.ul., and NEG Novex Wholesale Company for Electrical and Building Services Engineering GmbH
This is a final procedural order of the Court of First Instance concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP3522755, owned by Washtower IP B.V. Following a prior order of 11 September 2025, the applicants indicated their wish to enforce the injunctions, information order, penalty sums, and costs award against defendants 2-5. The Court confirmed receipt of security deposits totaling €50,000 and ordered electronic service of the final order on defendants 2-5, who had consented to service by email and waived their right to translations.
Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC (part of the Johnson & Johnson group) sought provisional measures against RiVOLUTiON GmbH, a German distributor of medical products, alleging infringement of European patent EP 3 689 262 relating to staple cartridges for surgical stapling devices. Cilag argued that Rivolution's distribution of infringing products from Bluesail Medical and David Medical, as well as its planned Bariatric Study using these products, constituted patent infringement. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague, dismissed the application for provisional measures and ordered Cilag to pay EUR 80,000 in interim costs to Rivolution.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendant, Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP), to deposit three physical objects (BB40A-C) as evidence in proceedings involving patent EP2432351. The claimant, HL Display AB, opposed the request as untimely. The Court of First Instance rejected the application, finding that BSRP provided no explanation for why the exhibits could not have been filed together with its rejoinder submitted on 20 February 2025.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP2432351, owned by HL Display AB. The defendant, Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP), requested to deposit two physical objects as exhibit BB38 to support positions taken in its rejoinder. The claimant opposed the request as untimely, and the court dismissed the application, finding that no adequate explanation was provided for why the exhibits could not have been filed earlier.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP2432351 owned by HL Display AB against Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. The order addressed several procedural matters including the appointment of a technical judge, use of visual aids, rescheduling of the oral hearing, and setting the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both the claim and counterclaim.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku, Inc.
Sun Patent Trust sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) and Anti-Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AAEI) against Roku, Inc. before the Local Chamber Munich after Roku filed a US lawsuit seeking Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Injunctions. The court initially granted the interim measures ex parte, but upon Roku's request for review, found the application moot after Roku amended its US complaint and provided cease-and-desist declarations. The court ordered Roku to bear the costs, holding that a prior warning was unnecessary given Roku had already initiated court proceedings for an ASI/AEI.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This case concerns a review application by Roku, Inc. regarding an ex parte order granting Dolby International AB an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) and Anti-Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AAEI) before the Local Chamber Munich. The court declared the application for interim measures moot and the proceedings terminated, but held that Roku bore the costs because a prior cease-and-desist letter was unnecessary given Roku had already initiated US proceedings seeking Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Injunctions against Dolby.
Hand Held Products Inc. v.Scandit AG and Scandit Inc.
This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) regarding European Patent EP4163816. Both parties, Hand Held Products Inc. and Scandit (AG and Inc), reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees since the written procedure was still ongoing.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation). The court corrected its prior order of December 2, 2024 to include in the operative part the replacement of the counter-defendant (Heraeus Precious Metals) with Heraeus Electronics in the nullity counterclaim proceedings. The court also deferred its decision on Heraeus's Rule 362 RoP application seeking to bar the nullity counterclaim regarding the German part of the patent based on alleged res judicata from a prior Federal Patent Court decision, ruling that a decision before the main hearing on July 1, 2025 would jeopardize the unified proceedings under Rule 363.2 RoP.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (relating to a metal sintering preparation). The court corrected an earlier order from December 2, 2024 to include in its operative part the replacement of the counter-defendant (Plaintiff 2) by Plaintiff 1 in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The court further decided to defer its decision on Heraeus's Rule 362 RoP application—which sought to bar the revocation counterclaim regarding the German part of the patent on res judicata grounds—until after the main hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff Dolby International AB withdrew its patent infringement action, and defendants ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France withdrew their nullity counterclaims. The court accepted the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, with partial reimbursement of court fees.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Dolby International AB against several ASUS entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, along with a counterclaim for invalidity filed by certain ASUS defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its main action and the ASUS defendants to withdraw their counterclaim. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, with a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Infringement proceedings and counterclaims for revocation concerning European Patent EP4070727 were withdrawn by all parties before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague. All parties consented to the withdrawal and indicated no cost decision was requested. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
This case before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerned European Patent EP4070727 owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. All parties requested withdrawal of their respective claims, including the infringement claim and counterclaims for revocation. The court allowed the withdrawals, granted Dexcom's request for reimbursement of 20% of court fees, and set the value of the actions at EUR 4,000,000.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP4070727 before the Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. All parties subsequently requested withdrawal of their respective claims and consented to the closure of proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V., proprietor of European patent EP 4 171 996 B1 concerning a modular trailer system with jack cradles, filed an ex parte application for preserving evidence against P.T.S. Machinery B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. Mammoet alleged that PTS, which had been commissioned in November 2020 to build jack cradles based on confidential drawings, was indirectly infringing the patent by producing and supplying a 'Mechanical Construction' matching the claimed invention. The court granted the application, ordering measures including physical seizure of documentation, access to PTS' premises, appointment of a bailiff and expert, and penalty payments for non-compliance.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321. Both parties agreed that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation should be heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, and the panel concurred. The court ordered the consolidation of the proceedings and scheduled an interim hearing for January 16, 2025, and an oral hearing for March 25, 2025.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH, and Belkin Limited
This case concerns an application by Koninklijke Philips N.V. for the imposition of a coercive fine (Zwangsgeld) against the Belkin entities for non-compliance with an information order (Auskunft) issued in a main infringement decision dated September 13, 2024, regarding EP 2 867 997 B1. The Local Chamber Munich held that while the defendants were not required to provide the information in electronic form (since this was not specifically requested), they had provided incomplete information. A total coercive fine of €46,000 was imposed, and appeal was admitted.
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.