Dr Schumacher
26 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
26 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
beMatrix NV. v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a rectification of an earlier provisional measures order in the dispute between beMatrix NV. and Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. The original application sought preliminary injunctions against alleged infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1, which covers display modules for temporary exhibition stands. The Court ultimately corrected a clerical error in its prior ruling, ensuring that the Defendant was properly ordered to cease and desist from infringing the patent. This highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting administrative or drafting errors.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In this UPC decision, the Court of First Instance addressed a request by Wizart Inc. to impose security for legal costs on Leap Tools Inc., citing the latter's Canadian base and estimated revenue. The court ultimately rejected the motion, emphasizing that simply being non-EU or having moderate revenue is not enough to establish an undue burden of enforcement. Practitioners should note that applicants seeking security must provide detailed evidence regarding foreign law recognition and enforceability, rather than relying on general nationality arguments.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this UPC decision, the Court addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 686 683 B1, which covers developer replenishing systems. While the core claims were dismissed, the ruling provided significant guidance on procedural fairness. The court held that defendants who use their websites to mislead the public about patent status may be compelled by Article 80 UPCA to publish the operative parts of the judgment themselves.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the critical issue of service of process against a defendant based in China. Despite formal attempts via Chinese authorities failing, and subsequent email contact being ignored, the Court invoked the principle of effective judicial protection. It ruled that publishing the provisional measures order on the UPC website constituted valid good service, allowing the proceedings to continue without further delay.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of service of process in a UPC provisional measures case involving parties across different jurisdictions, specifically China. The Court found that traditional methods of serving Defendant 2 were ineffective and unduly delayed. By invoking the principle of effective judicial protection, the Düsseldorf Local Division declared that publishing the preliminary injunction on the UPC website constituted valid good service. This ruling provides significant guidance for practitioners dealing with cross-border litigation where formal service is impractical.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request from Canon Kabushiki Kaisha for simultaneous Japanese interpretation during oral proceedings. The Court ruled that allowing the Claimant to use an interpreter was appropriate to ensure equality of arms, given that some corporate representatives were not proficient in English. However, the Court denied the request for court-organized interpretation and held that the costs would not become part of the proceedings, emphasizing that such arrangements are generally not provided unless necessary or if the language is official.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures and a preliminary injunction against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The case, filed under R. 206 RoP, targeted counterfeit printer cartridges (types 924 and 937) sold by both German and Chinese defendants. Crucially, the court also imposed significant penalty payments on the Chinese defendant to enforce compliance with the provisional measures, demonstrating a strong enforcement stance in UPC proceedings.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard sought preliminary injunctions against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic regarding its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). Although the court dismissed the application for provisional measures in most aspects, it issued a highly specific order. This ruling forces the defendant to disclose detailed information about the origin and distribution of infringing products, backed by severe daily penalty payments if they fail to comply.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha to submit further evidence regarding additional infringing products found during a late test purchase. The Court rejected the Claimant's attempt to introduce new arguments concerning these additional model numbers, citing principles of due process and procedural economy. The ruling stressed that evidence should be presented without delay when relevant deadlines are approaching, especially if the subject matter is materially identical to what has already been pleaded.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division permitted Leap Tools Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Wizart LLC (Defendant 2). The court found that because service of process had not been completed and Defendant 2 appeared non-existent or unserviceable, it lacked a legitimate interest in continuing the lawsuit. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding multi-defendant actions when one party becomes practically unreachable.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
In a critical procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the challenges of serving foreign defendants in urgent UPC proceedings. The court ruled that if formal service attempts via international conventions stall or fail, and all other reasonable efforts have been exhausted, the steps taken by the applicant can be deemed sufficient for proper legal notice under Rule 275.2 RoP. This decision provides significant procedural relief to applicants facing unresponsive foreign jurisdictions in high-stakes IP litigation.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC Local Division dismissed the Defendants' demand that Align Technology provide security for legal costs. The Defendants had argued that due to the Applicant being based in the United States, enforcement of any potential costs award would incur substantial and potentially non-reimbursable expenses. However, the Court found that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof, specifically by not providing evidence on the foreign law applicable for enforcement in the US. This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required when seeking security for costs within the UPC.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding alleged infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The court granted a preliminary injunction and imposed significant penalty payments, demonstrating the immediate enforcement power available under the UPC system for interim relief. This case underscores the importance of timely action when seeking protection against counterfeit or infringing components in the fast-moving printer cartridge market.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures against a Chinese defendant, the court addressed the critical issue of service failure under international conventions. Despite official notification from Chinese authorities that the company did not exist at the provided address, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted the applicant's request. The ruling established that if the applicant provides credible evidence verifying the accuracy of the registered address, prior attempts can be deemed good service, ensuring the applicant's urgent legal rights are protected.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a critical hurdle in the infringement action brought by Leap Tools Inc. against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC: serving the Statement of Claim. After multiple failed attempts to locate the Defendants' current addresses, the Claimant successfully argued that good reason existed for alternative service. The Court granted permission to serve Defendant 2 at their CEO's business address in Poland, allowing the infringement proceedings to move forward.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the scope of infringement claims in a stroller patent case (EP 1 905 615). The Defendants challenged the Claimant's attempt to extend its argument from literal infringement to equivalence for additional features. The Panel ultimately upheld the initial order, confirming that expanding the equivalence argument does not fundamentally alter the nature or scope of the dispute. This ruling provides clarity on how the doctrine of equivalence can be applied procedurally within UPC case management.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company and associated entities (including BAMTech LLC)
In a procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate an infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings against The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates. The case also includes a counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 080 349. By combining both claims, the Court aims for judicial efficiency, ensuring that any determination of patent validity is consistent with the subsequent assessment of infringement. This early decision sets the procedural framework for the complex dispute involving digital streaming technologies.
Eyesmatch Ltd v.Microsoft Corp.
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing an infringement action when parties reach a settlement outside of court. Eyesmatch Ltd withdrew its claim against Microsoft Corp., and the Court formally closed the proceedings. The ruling highlights that mutual agreement between parties can supersede standard cost determination procedures, provided all necessary declarations are made.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard Development Company sought provisional measures against two defendants regarding the alleged infringement of its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). The Düsseldorf Local Division granted certain provisional orders, notably imposing significant penalty payments on Defendant 2 for manufacturing or importing infringing devices. This decision underscores the UPC's ability to swiftly enforce rights through interim measures while maintaining flexibility regarding subsequent merits proceedings.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Cybex Retail GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's application to change its infringement claims regarding a swivel locking device for strollers (EP 1 905 615). The Claimant sought to modify claim language, primarily by altering how components were allocated between the 'seat' and the 'base' of the wheel bearing assembly. While the court found that the proposed extension of equivalence arguments was not fundamentally changing the targeted structure, it ultimately denied the application for leave to change the claim.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG, Cybex Retail GmbH
In a recent procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate two related actions: an infringement claim brought by Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. against Cybex GmbH and its affiliates, alongside a counterclaim for revocation. The court found that proceeding jointly was the most efficient approach, allowing both validity and infringement issues to be assessed under a single, uniform interpretation by the same judicial panel. This decision sets the framework for the full trial, which is yet to commence.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request for an extension of time related to confidential information protection. The Claimant, QIAGEN Sciences, LLC, sought more time to respond to the Defendants' Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation. The Court granted the extension, emphasizing that statutory deadlines must be adjusted when access to critical, unredacted evidence is delayed.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A., bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of protecting trade secrets within a high-stakes UPC infringement and revocation action between QIAGEN Sciences, LLC and bioMérieux S.A. The Court meticulously balanced the need for transparency with the imperative to protect sensitive commercial information, particularly regarding peptide sequences and analytical results. By granting specific confidentiality classifications and access restrictions, the ruling sets a strong precedent for managing proprietary data in complex biotech litigation before the UPC.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha initiated infringement proceedings against General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. and related entities concerning EP 3 686 683 B1, which included a counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a Procedural Order confirming that both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim would be heard jointly. This decision streamlines the litigation process by ensuring a unified interpretation of the patent's scope across both validity and infringement claims.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer SA, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer Oy, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer B.V., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Pfizer Service Company S.r.l.
In a case involving GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and various Pfizer entities, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the Claimant to withdraw its patent infringement action against the Defendants. This decision followed the mutual agreement of both parties to terminate the proceedings. Crucially, the court also ruled to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the substantial court fees paid during the litigation. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can lead to swift resolution in UPC actions.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer SA, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer Oy, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer B.V., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Pfizer Service Company S.r.l.
In this complex pharmaceutical patent dispute, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a dual action involving infringement and revocation. Following unanimous requests from all parties, the Court opted to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division, citing procedural efficiency as a key factor. Crucially, however, the Local Division decided to proceed with the main infringement action itself. Furthermore, the Defendants were granted a necessary one-month extension to ensure they could address all issues related to the infringement proceedings.
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.