Diese Anordnung wurde durch den Vorsitzenden
96 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
96 cases indexed | Page 2 of 4
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
The UPC Local Division in Munich issued a procedural order setting a date for an interim hearing focused specifically on FRAND issues in the ongoing infringement case involving Lenovo and ASUS. This hearing is confidential and will be conducted in English, allowing parties to discuss sensitive licensing terms outside of public scrutiny. The decision highlights the court's ability to manage complex technical and contractual disputes within the UPC framework.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company
In this procedural case concerning an Anti-anti-suit Injunction (AASI), the court addressed the defendants' refusal to properly acknowledge service. The claimant argued that the defendants were deliberately obstructing the legal process by limiting their representation and refusing formal acknowledgment of the AASI. The Mannheim Local Chamber ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that such procedural tactics are invalid and constitute a breach of professional conduct. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring proper due process and compliance with its orders within the UPC framework.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
In this procedural ruling, Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. sought an extension of its deadline to respond to the defendants' submissions due to technical issues with the UPC CMS. The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected the request, finding that Lenovo failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest for the extension. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural rules within the UPC framework.
QUANTIFICARE S.A. v.Canfield Scientific, Inc., Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l., ESTHETEC SAS
In UPC case UPC_CFI_559/2024, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued a procedural order regarding EP 3 156 843 B1. The court utilized its discretion to streamline the litigation process by deciding early that it would handle both the infringement claim brought by QUANTIFICARE S.A. and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Canfield Scientific and others simultaneously. This decision aims to ensure a unified legal interpretation of the patent claims while maximizing procedural efficiency.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG initiated proceedings against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) concerning EP 2 892 442 B1, a patent related to surgical torque-transmitting instruments. The Düsseldorf Local Court issued an order setting the technical scope of Claim 1 for the upcoming oral hearing on July 1, 2025. This procedural step is crucial as it defines the precise features that will be debated regarding potential infringement or validity in this UPC case.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC case, Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe). The core dispute revolved around procedural matters: specifically, whether the respondent could receive simultaneous interpretation and participate via video conference during the oral hearing. The court partially granted the request, allowing the respondent to hire an interpreter at their own expense, but rejected the formal application for state-funded interpretation and denied the video conferencing option due to insufficient justification.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This interim order in the UPC case between Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz focuses heavily on procedural consolidation. The court mandated that the claimant, Heraeus, submit a consolidated version of its formal claims by June 11, 2025. This move aims to streamline the proceedings, especially concerning how infringement claims relate to counterclaims for revocation across different jurisdictions. The parties are also urged to resume settlement discussions and establish a cost comparison.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC provisional measures case, Aesculap AG sought interim relief against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding EP 2 892 442 B1. Although the core dispute is ongoing, the respondent challenged the patent's validity (novelty and inventive step). The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled that given the technical complexity and the challenge to validity, it was necessary to appoint an additional technically qualified judge to assist the panel early in the proceedings.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Henle Baumaschinentechnik GmbH
In a case involving infringement and revocation of EP 3 770 330 B1, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted an extension of deadlines for the claimant. The court recognized that the late provision of evidence by the defendant constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the procedural relief. This decision underscores the UPC's willingness to manage complex litigation timelines when procedural fairness is at stake.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for protection of trade secrets between CUP&CINO and ALPINA Coffee Systems. The court successfully classified specific financial data submitted by the respondent as confidential business information under Article 58 EPC. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting sensitive commercial data during litigation, ensuring that proprietary information remains restricted to authorized parties.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In a procedural ruling concerning cost assessment within an ongoing UPC action, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted the claimant, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH, protection for its trade secrets. The court found that information regarding billed work and hourly rates constituted confidential business information. This decision reinforces the ability of parties to safeguard sensitive commercial data during litigation under the UPC framework.
Atlas Global Techonologies GmbH v.TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE.LTD.
Atlas Global Techonologies GmbH initiated infringement and revocation proceedings against TP-Link entities concerning EP 3 186 937. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber issued an order suspending the entire case based on a mutual agreement reached by all parties involved in the litigation. This suspension is a common procedural mechanism used to allow parties time for negotiation or settlement outside of court, effectively pausing the legal battle.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA; Vantiva Technologies SAS; Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, the infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 353 901 were suspended. Atlas Global Technologies GmbH (Claimant) and Vantiva entities (Respondents) mutually agreed to this suspension. This decision highlights the parties' ability to manage complex UPC litigation through procedural agreements.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-Link Deutschland GmbH
In a procedural development concerning the patent EP 3 353 901, Atlas Global Technologies GmbH initiated proceedings against TP-Link entities. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order suspending the case. This suspension was reached by mutual agreement of all parties involved in the infringement and revocation actions. This highlights how strategic agreements can pause high-stakes UPC litigation.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG
This UPC decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning evidence preservation and inspection related to the patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which covers specialized saw wires used in semiconductor manufacturing. The claimant sought to inspect facilities of Siltronic AG (and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG) to gather evidence regarding the use of patented saw wire types. Despite acknowledging the general principles of evidence preservation, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately rejected the application for an inspection and evidence-gathering order.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC procedural order addressed a request by Heraeus Electronics to extend its response deadline, citing the vacation of key members of its Confidentiality Club and delays in accessing confidential documents. The court corrected the start date for Heraeus's deadlines based on when access was actually granted (March 18, 2025). However, the court ultimately denied the request for further extensions, stating that personal vacations do not affect procedural timelines.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a procedural application concerning public access to court documents in the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_135/2024). The claimant sought extensive access to all filed exhibits and pleadings. The Court partially granted this request, allowing access to specific redacted versions of key documents while rejecting broader requests for further redaction or disclosure.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an urgent inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. ahead of a main infringement lawsuit concerning its patent on surface treatment processes. The claimant argued that the respondent's specialized sales channels made it nearly impossible to obtain products for testing, thus preventing verification of alleged infringements. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing procedural requirements and setting strict deadlines for filing the main action.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
In this UPC case involving packaging technology, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued an order setting out the procedural path forward for both infringement and revocation claims. The court decided to combine the two actions into a single proceeding, citing efficiency and the benefit of a unified interpretation by the same judicial panel. This decision streamlines complex patent litigation, allowing claimants and defendants to address validity and infringement simultaneously.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses procedural motions regarding the exchange of further written pleadings in a patent infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 755 901 B1. The court ruled against both the claimant (Hartmann Packaging A/S) and the respondents (Omni-Pac GmbH). The ruling underscores strict adherence to the UPC's procedural timetable, requiring parties to utilize their allotted submissions or formally request additional pleadings under R. 36 VerfO with strong justification.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court rejected a request by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. to introduce evidence regarding a Chinese patent's invalidation decision into the UPC proceedings. The court found that the late submission and failure to provide the document in German prejudiced the preparation for the upcoming oral hearing. This case highlights the strict procedural requirements of the UPC, emphasizing timely submissions and adherence to the official language of the proceedings.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order from the Munich Local Division addresses complex issues arising in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 215 288. The court corrected an earlier decision regarding party substitution in the counterclaim and deferred a ruling on an application to bar proceedings (RoP362). By reserving the decision until after the main hearing, the UPC ensures that procedural rulings do not disrupt the planned unified trial schedule for both infringement and validity issues.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order addresses complex issues within a UPC infringement and revocation counterclaim case involving Heraeus and Vibrantz regarding EP 3 215 288. The court corrected previous orders concerning party substitution in the revocation proceedings. Crucially, the court deferred a decision on an application to bar the action based on prior national decisions until after the main hearing, prioritizing the smooth conduct of the overall trial.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek Computer Inc.
In this UPC case involving Lenovo against ASUSTEK entities, the Local Division issued an order consolidating the proceedings. The court decided to hear both the infringement claim brought by Lenovo and the counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 682 587 together. This procedural step is significant as it streamlines the litigation process, allowing the validity of the patent to be assessed concurrently with its alleged infringement.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Lenovo initiated infringement proceedings against ASUSTek and its subsidiaries before the UPC Local Division in Munich regarding EP patent 3 682 587. The court issued a procedural order setting out the next steps in the litigation. Key dates were established for an interim video conference hearing (September 2025) and the main oral proceedings (November 2025). This case highlights the structured, multi-stage nature of UPC infringement actions.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC decision is a procedural order issued by the Local Division of Munich in an infringement case involving Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz GmbH regarding EP patent 3 215 288. The court addressed scheduling conflicts, rescheduling the interim hearing to May 28, 2025, and confirming the oral hearing for July 1, 2025. This order sets clear procedural timelines, including a deadline of May 14, 2025, for written submissions.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc.
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures (UPC_CFI_791/2024), Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd successfully withdrew its application after reaching an out-of-court settlement with Netgear Inc. and its affiliates. The Munich Local Division of the UPC granted the withdrawal, formally ending the interim relief proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can efficiently resolve complex patent disputes within the UPC framework, leading to the immediate release of security deposits.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to withdraw its infringement claim against Netgear and permitted Netgear to withdraw their revocation counterclaims regarding EP 3 611 989. The court confirmed that withdrawal was permissible because the prior decision had not yet attained legal force. This case highlights how parties can resolve complex UPC litigation through mutual agreement, leading to a procedural dismissal of the actions.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH; Netgear Inc.; Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to withdraw its infringement claim against Netgear and simultaneously accepted the withdrawal of Netgear's counterclaim for revocation. This decision reflects a common strategic resolution in complex patent litigation, where parties opt to terminate proceedings rather than proceed to a full trial. The court formalized the termination while granting a partial refund of court fees.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
In this UPC case, Netgear Deutschland GmbH and its affiliates successfully withdrew their infringement action against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The withdrawal was based on an agreement between the parties, leading to the termination of the proceedings. Although the core dispute was settled out of court, the claimant secured a partial refund of 40% of the paid court fees from the UPC.
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.