Diese Anordnung wurde durch den Vorsitzenden
83 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
83 cases indexed | Page 3 of 3
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on November 22, 2024, rejecting the defendants' application for a stay of proceedings and cancellation of the scheduled pronouncement date, as well as their alternative application for postponement of the pronouncement to at least December 6, 2024. The court found that the requirements for a stay under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure were not met, particularly because there was no joint application from both parties, as the plaintiff had expressly opposed the stay. The case concerns European Patent EP 2 568 724.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns the handling of confidential information in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent No. 3 215 288. The defendant Vibrantz GmbH sought to classify certain redacted text passages and unredacted exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited number of persons. The claimants Heraeus partially contested the need for protection, arguing that some information had already been disclosed in national proceedings and requesting access for five named individuals. The court addressed the scope of confidentiality protection and the number of persons permitted to access the sensitive recipe/formulation information.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought leave under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file additional submissions after learning that the defendants were also offering the 'Barryvox S' (in addition to the previously accused 'Barryvox S2') with voice control functionality. The court denied the request, finding no basis to permit further submissions, noting that the plaintiff is already protected by confirmed provisional measures orders regarding the 'Barryvox S2' and retains remedies for any potential violations.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent No. EP 3 466 498 B1 in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The defendants sought leave to file further written submissions by October 28, 2024, in response to a Court of Appeal order dated September 25, 2024. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected the application, finding that the appellate order provided no basis for permitting additional pleadings in the main proceedings.
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP3024163. The defendants filed a stay application based on a parallel UK High Court action seeking determination of FRAND license terms. The presiding judge referred the stay application to the full panel for decision, proposing that the matter be addressed during or after already scheduled oral hearings concerning related patents.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on September 17, 2024, rejecting the plaintiff's application to examine its own party expert as a witness in the oral hearing. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sought this examination in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724 against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., arguing that the deadline for its replication on the FRAND counterclaim was insufficient to address the defendants' expert opinion. The court held that the application was filed after the close of the interim proceedings and that the procedure of examining one's own party expert as a witness is not provided for in the Rules of Procedure.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
This is an interim procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the preparation of oral hearings in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, is proceeding against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The order sets out the scheduling and structural framework for the oral hearing, dividing it into a first day dedicated to technical issues (uniform interpretation of the patent, validity, and infringement by standard) and a second day addressing FRAND-related matters, including the FRAND counterclaim.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court decided, pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) of the EPG Agreement in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Grundfos Holding A/S against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. and the defendant's counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The decision was made before the close of the written procedure, with the consent of both parties, in order to allow early assignment of the technically qualified judge and to avoid scheduling delays.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. The order revokes a prior directive that had appointed a translation expert, after the parties agreed that the defendants' submitted translation of the priority application could be used and that the relevant Chinese-language documents were identical with respect to the passages relevant to the dispute, particularly regarding 'Preferred Embodiment 2.'
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 372 863. The plaintiff, Philips IP Ventures B.V., requested postponement of the oral hearing originally scheduled for September 11, 2024, citing the rescheduling of a parallel proceeding's decision date and the strategic importance of another related case. The defendants consented to the postponement, and the presiding judge granted the request, rescheduling the hearing to October 23, 2024.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.1. Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, 2. S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The applicant, Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG, sought provisional measures against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International to prevent the offering, distribution, and storage of an optical fiber for treating venous diseases ('Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber'), alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1. The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf rejected the application for interim measures without an oral hearing, finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the substantive necessity of provisional measures. The court held that the applicant had not adequately shown why its legal protection诉求 could not be sufficiently addressed through main proceedings.
UPC Decision UPC-001299 v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against three Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989 B1. The patent relates to technology implemented in devices using the Wi-Fi 6 standard, which the defendants manufacture and distribute. The order was issued by the presiding judge acting as rapporteur under Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure, with the proceedings conducted in German.
DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o., a member of the public, for access to the pleadings and evidence in an ongoing patent infringement case under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying infringement action was brought by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717, which relates to a color and light mixing collecting optic for outdoor LED variable traffic signs. The order establishes the legal framework for balancing public access interests against the protection of confidential information, personal data, and the integrity of the proceedings.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH for the release of a security deposit under Rule 352.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf had previously granted Ortovox an ex parte interim injunction on December 11, 2023, against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, requiring security of EUR 500,000 in the form of either a deposit or a bank guarantee. After Ortovox initially deposited the amount and later also provided a bank guarantee, creating double security, the court addressed whether the original deposit could be released.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Panasonic Holdings Corporation for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure regarding information contained in the unredacted version of its reply and attachments, as well as negotiations between the parties, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants (OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.) objected to the scope of the requested confidentiality regime, arguing it should extend to all related proceedings, permit information sharing with external counsel in parallel UK proceedings, and allow additional employees access. The matter was decided by the Presiding and Reporting Judge Dr. Tochtermann of the Local Chamber Mannheim.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, relating to LTE mobile communication technology. The court, through presiding judge and rapporteur Dr. Tochtermann, provided directions to the parties regarding claim interpretation requirements under Rule 13(1)(n) RoP, the need for the patent proprietor to anchor revocation counterclaim responses in specific claim features, the strict preclusion regime of Rule 30.2 RoP for later patent amendment requests, and the legal interest requirement for a FRAND license rate determination counterclaim seeking declaratory relief.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the extension of deadlines for the reply to the infringement action and the response to the counterclaim for revocation in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court established that while R. 9.3(a) RoP empowers the court to extend deadlines, such extensions should be granted cautiously and only in justified exceptional cases. The court held that restricted access to unredacted submissions due to R. 262A RoP confidentiality requests constitutes such an exceptional case, requiring that the party and its representatives have sufficient time to develop a unified strategy addressing both infringement and validity issues.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff Tridonic GmbH & Co KG brought an infringement action against CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together under Article 33(3)(a) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Respondent
The plaintiff, an Austrian machine and plant engineering company, sought permission to serve its infringement complaint on a Turkish defendant at the defendant's trade fair stand at the PRS Europe fair in Amsterdam on June 19/20, 2024. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, service may be effected at any location within contracting member states where a company has a permanent or temporary business establishment, and that a trade fair stand qualifies as such when, as is typically the case, deliveries are also promoted there. The court ordered service at the specified trade fair address and directed the plaintiff to initially bear the costs of such service.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
Dyson Technology Ltd., the registered proprietor of European Patent 2 043 492, sought provisional measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Chamber Munich. The application concerned alleged infringement of the patent-in-suit by the respondents' products in multiple countries. The court addressed issues of undue delay in seeking interim relief, patent claim interpretation, the summary nature of validity examination in interim proceedings, and the ordering of provisional cost reimbursement.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns the defendants' application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of documents in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3096315. The defendants, OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., sought production of various license agreements (including those designated 'X' and 'Y') that the plaintiff Panasonic Holdings Corporation relied upon as reference points in FRAND negotiations, as well as other 3G/4G SEP license agreements. The order was issued by the presiding and reporting judge Dr. Tochtermann of the Local Chamber Mannheim, addressing the procedural status of the production requests following the plaintiff's unredacted submissions on the FRAND aspect.
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.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. , OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license under Art. 33(3)(a) EPGÜ. The court further directed the Reporting Judge to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
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.