Diese Anordnung wurde durch den Vorsitzenden
96 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
96 cases indexed | Page 1 of 4
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A. Menarini Diagnostics France SASU
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities regarding European Patent EP 1 962 668 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written procedure was concluded, the claimants withdrew the action with the defendants' consent, having reached an out-of-court settlement whereby each party bears its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 7,500) to the claimants.
Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning European Patent EP 2 919 672 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and both parties consented to the withdrawal and to a partial refund of court fees. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff (EUR 6,600).
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH & Inverquark GmbH
This case concerns a request by the respondents (Inverquark entities) for a supplementary expert opinion and postponement of a decision on confidentiality interests in the context of an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected the request for a supplementary expert opinion, finding no legal basis and that it would be inconsistent with the purpose of evidence preservation proceedings. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant since no confidentiality interests were asserted, and set a deadline for the applicant to file a main action.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA and Others
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 3186937, involving a patent infringement action by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against Vantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, and Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Vantiva entities. Before the written proceedings were concluded, both the main action and the counterclaim were withdrawn by the respective parties with the consent of the opposing sides. The court allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, dispensed with a cost decision per the parties' agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to each side.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against three Vantiva entities regarding European Patent EP 3 353 901, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Vantiva entities against Atlas Global Technologies GmbH and Atlas Global Technologies LLC. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, both the main action and the counterclaim were withdrawn by the respective parties with the consent of the opposing parties. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, dispensed with a cost decision per the parties' agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to both sides.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked an ex-parte inspection and evidence preservation order that had been issued in favor of Ecovacs Robotics against Roborock (HK) Limited concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The court found that Ecovacs had breached Rule 192.3 RoP by providing incomplete and misleading submissions, as it had failed to present any technical facts showing that the accused robot vacuum cleaners practiced the patent claims. The order was set aside with ex-tunc effect, except for the confidentiality provisions, and Ecovacs was ordered to bear the costs of the inspection.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, and HyGear B.V.
Topsoe A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of the respondents ahead of a potential main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the respondents to grant access to an electrically heated hydrogen production plant bearing the inscription 'www.hygear.com' on its outer wall, including the opening of the reactor, subject to various procedural safeguards.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. a. o.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled an oral hearing for June 17, 2026, added Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a party, and proposed a consensual procedural approach regarding a request for restitutio in integrum by Defendant 1 and the inclusion of the 'Bojin Rosenfräser' product embodiment into the proceedings.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This is a correction order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on November 26, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The order amends address errors contained in a prior order of November 25, 2025, which had granted an application by Topsoe A/S for inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The corrections relate to the registered office addresses of both respondents and the production facility address of SYPOX GmbH.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH & Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH
Topsoe A/S, holder of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, applied for an order of inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The applicant suspected that SYPOX's electrically heated biogas-to-hydrogen plants (SYPOX H-200 and SYPOX H-400) infringed its patent. The court granted the application, ordering the respondents to grant the bailiff and expert unrestricted access to the allegedly infringing hydrogen production plants and related construction and operational documents.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 024 099 B1 concerning cable processing devices, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd. at the Productronica trade fair in Munich. Komax suspected that BOZHIWANG's 'BZW-3005' machine infringed claims 1, 7, and 9 of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering inspection of the machine and seizure of related documents at the trade fair stand, subject to extensive safeguards for the respondent's trade secrets.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for inspection and evidence preservation (under Article 60 EPGÜ) at the trade fair stand of STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. at the EMO Messe Hannover, in preparation for a main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. After the inspection was executed and the court-appointed expert produced a detailed description, the respondent was given the opportunity to assert confidentiality interests but did not do so. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant, lifted the protective order in relation to the applicant, and set the deadline for filing the main action.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH & Anr.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court granted an order for inspection and evidence preservation in favor of Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 relating to a counter-current swimming device. The applicant sought inspection of the respondents' 'InverJet' counter-current swimming device exhibited at the Aquanale trade fair in Cologne to gather evidence of alleged infringement of claims 1, 9, 10, and 11 of the patent. The court ordered the inspection to be carried out by an expert and court bailiff, with detailed measurements, photographs, and potentially disassembly, subject to various procedural safeguards.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
The applicant, sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation of the respondent's 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell' machine exhibited at the EMO Messe Hannover 2025 trade fair. The applicant argued that access to the machine through normal commercial channels was impossible due to its high price (estimated well above EUR 100,000) and the respondent's exclusive, personalized distribution network. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the inspection to be carried out by a court bailiff and appointed expert at the respondent's trade fair stand.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patents EP 3 353 901 and EP 3 186 937 against TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and three related TP-LINK entities before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings, and with the agreement of all parties, the court ordered the proceedings stayed pursuant to Rule 295(a) RoP until the EPO decision becomes final or the opposition appeal proceedings conclude.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.Ex Parte
Anordnung
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The court rejected the claimant TRUMPF's applications for admission of new auxiliary requests for patent amendment under R. 30.2 RoP and for admission of a corresponding further submission under R. 36 RoP, finding the claimant's justification insufficient to enable the court to exercise its discretion.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Ecovacs Home Service Robotics Co., Ltd., ECOVACS Europe GmbH, ECOVACS France S.a.r.l., and ECOVACS Robotics Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 494 446. Defendant 2 (ECOVACS Europe GmbH) sought a two-month extension of its deadline to file a statement of defense and counterclaim for invalidity, and an extension of its Preliminary Objection deadline, to unify the procedural timetable with the other three defendants who had not yet been served. The court rejected the application, finding that Defendant 2 did not claim it needed more time for its defense but only sought procedural simplification, and that the interest in procedural unification did not outweigh the claimant's interest in proceeding without delay.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning EP 2 661 133. Defendant 5 (Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) requested a unified deadline regime for all defendants, including a two-week extension of the reply and rejoinder deadlines to account for Christmas and Easter holidays. The court granted the application, noting that service proofs were still pending for several defendants.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd., holder of European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1 concerning a robot localization method, filed an ex parte application for inspection and evidence preservation against Roborock (HK) Limited at the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The application sought to inspect Roborock's booth at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin to gather evidence of alleged patent infringement by Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners. The court granted the order, finding that the trade fair inspection was the applicant's only realistic opportunity to obtain evidence, given that Roborock operates from Hong Kong without a German establishment.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 385 739. Defendant Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH requested a uniform deadline regime for all defendants and a two-week extension of the replication and duplication deadlines to account for Christmas and Easter holidays. The court granted the application, noting that service proofs for several defendants were still outstanding and reserving the right to subsequently shorten deadlines if representation of the remaining defendants is not promptly assumed.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd & CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 011 218 B1. In light of ongoing settlement discussions in parallel proceedings, the court suspended the file inspection proceedings by agreement of all parties until a party or the applicant requests resumption. The plaintiff's request for extension of time was thereby rendered moot.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1, which relates to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Ronny Thomas on August 21, 2025, concludes the interim proceedings in a combined infringement action and revocation counterclaim between Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) as plaintiff and two Omni-Pac entities as defendants. The court set out its preliminary view on the relevant skilled person, provided detailed feature breakdowns for patent claims 1 and 6, and issued preparatory directions for the oral hearing.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.Inventronics GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1 in an infringement action. In light of ongoing settlement discussions, the court granted a joint request by both parties to stay the proceedings until resumption upon request of one of the parties, pursuant to Rules 295(d) and 296.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 605 534 B1. The court granted the plaintiff Dolby International AB's application under R. 36 RoP for leave to file a further written submission addressing the FRAND objection raised by the defendants Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. The court found the additional submission appropriate for reasons of fairness, equity, efficiency, and the right to be heard, noting no prejudice to the defendants and no procedural delay.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072 B1. Both parties jointly requested a change of the language of proceedings to the language of the patent. The court granted the request, ordering that the proceedings language be changed to English pursuant to Art. 49(3) EPGÜ and R. 321 RoP.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 548 898 B1, in which the court decided to add a technically qualified judge to the panel in interim measures proceedings. The respondent had challenged both infringement and the validity of the patent in its opposition to the application for interim measures, leading the presiding judge to conclude that early addition of a technically qualified judge was appropriate and necessary.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order threatening the respondent with coercive fines of up to EUR 30,000 per day for non-compliance with a prior information disclosure order. The applicant, Aesculap AG, had obtained an order on July 10, 2025 against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) regarding European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, and subsequently notified its intention to enforce the order in full, requesting the respondent to provide information within one month.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (UPC_CFI_63/2025)
This case concerns an application by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH to revoke an evidence preservation and inspection order under Rule 198.1 EPGVerfO. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, holding that Nanoval GmbH had timely initiated main proceedings based on the revised deadline start date set by the rapporteur's order of March 18, 2025, which adjusted the deadline start to the date the expert's report was made accessible to Nanoval.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning a FRAND interim hearing in patent infringement proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 682 587. The court set out a timetable for further pleadings on the FRAND objection, with ASUS permitted to file until August 11, 2025, and Lenovo to respond until September 1, 2025. The order also confirmed upcoming dates for a further interim hearing (September 25, 2025, by video conference) and the main oral hearing (November 19, 2025, in person in Munich).
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.