Diese Anordnung wurde durch den Vorsitzenden
96 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
96 cases indexed | Page 4 of 4
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against 15 HP entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, which relates to video decoding devices for HEVC files. Following the defendants' request to summon NVIDIA Corporation as a third party, the plaintiff sought leave to limit its claims to exclude devices where the claimed video decoding means are implemented by graphics cards sold by NVIDIA or its affiliated companies. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the limitation as an unconditional restriction under R. 263.3 RoP, finding it was not merely a clarification but a permissible narrowing of the claim.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc. sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience Inc. before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1 concerning methods and arrays for localized detection of nucleic acid in tissue samples. The court found that 10x Genomics had standing as the registered patent proprietor and that Curio Bioscience's product fell within the scope of patent claim 14. The court granted a partial injunction limited to the specific embodiment of claim 14, ordered mutual provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 100,000, and required 10x Genomics to post security of EUR 2,000,000 before enforcement.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding European Patent EP 2 568 724, deciding 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' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3)(a) UPCA to combine these proceedings for reasons of efficiency and procedural economy.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) UPCA, 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' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's nascent operational situation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, in which Panasonic Holdings Corporation (plaintiff) brought an infringement action against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (defendants). The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 RoP in conjunction with Art. 33(3) UPCA, to jointly hear the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim rather than bifurcating the proceedings.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (relating to a metal sintering preparation). The court addressed multiple procedural applications, including a review of a prior refusal to allow amendment for indirect infringement of a process claim, and requests by both parties to extend the proceedings to Romania following its accession to the UPC Agreement on September 1, 2024. The court granted the amendments, revised its prior order, set a new briefing schedule, increased the dispute value to €1.25 million each, and allowed appeal.
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.