Judge Profile

Dennis Kretschmann

4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent denied · Aug 29, 2025

Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH

The Hague (NL) Local Division · ORD_32992/2025

Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC sought provisional measures against German distributor RiVOLUTiON GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of their staple cartridge patent EP3689262. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, meaning no immediate injunction was granted. However, the court concurrently confirmed a preliminary confidentiality order and established a confidentiality club, setting procedural groundwork for future litigation.

patent settled · Jun 23, 2025

Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.

Luxembourg (LU) · App_22747/2025

This UPC Court of Appeal decision confirmed a settlement reached between Plant-e and Arkyne regarding the infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 137 782. While the core dispute was settled, the Court issued a significant ruling on procedural matters, specifically granting Arkyne a reimbursement of 60% of its court fees. This case highlights the practical application of UPC rules governing settlements and fee refunds.

patent dismissed · Oct 24, 2024

Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH; SSAB Europe Oy

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_33127/2024

In this UPC case concerning provisional measures, Tiroler Rohre GmbH sought an interim injunction against SSAB entities. After a hearing, the claimant withdrew its application. The court subsequently dismissed the request and ruled that since the withdrawal did not prevent future proceedings, there was no legitimate interest for the respondents to have a decision on the matter. Consequently, the claimant was ordered to cover all procedural costs.

patent dismissed · May 16, 2024

Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.***

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC_CFI_372/2023

This UPC decision addressed a revocation action concerning EP 3 170 639 B1, which ultimately became moot when the patent holder voluntarily withdrew the patent. The court analyzed the equitable distribution of costs, noting that it is generally unfair to charge costs to a patent owner who withdraws immediately upon seeing relevant prior art presented in the lawsuit. Despite this finding regarding equity, the claimant was ordered to bear the procedural costs.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →