Diese Anordnung wurde durch Richterin Dr
3 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
3 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 805 415. The defendants (Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH) requested an extension of the deadline for filing their statement of defense from September 9, 2025 to October 9, 2025, citing pending laboratory analyses of foil material relevant to prior art and prior use defenses. The plaintiff (Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.) opposed the extension. The court granted a one-week extension to September 16, 2025, finding the defendants' reasons partially justified but rejecting the longer extension as unnecessary.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This is a procedural language dispute before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs (Roche entities) chose German as the procedural language, and multiple defendants objected, seeking a change to English. The court rejected all objections, holding that the plaintiffs' choice of German was valid under Art. 49(2) UPCA and Rule 14.2 RoP, and that the defendants' objections were either unfounded or, in the case of defendants 3-5, also filed out of time.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned objections filed by several defendants seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. The court rejected all objections, holding that the plaintiffs' choice of German as the procedural language was valid under Article 49(2) EPGÜ and Rule 14.2(a) RoP, and that the exceptions in Rule 14.2(b) did not apply since Germany does not designate any official language other than German. The court further held that the objection by Defendants 3, 4, and 5 was time-barred because their submissions were not received by the Sub-Registry within the extended deadline.
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.