in Dr
46 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
46 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH infringed claim 2 of European Patent EP 3 398 487 B1 (owned by CUP&CINO) through its ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo milk frother. The court dismissed ALPINA's counterclaim for revocation of the patent and granted relief including an injunction, destruction orders, information obligations, and recall orders, while holding that advertising materials are exempt from destruction under Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1, directed at a method and arrangement for generating a laser beam with different beam profile characteristics using a multi-clad fiber. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the infringement claim against IPG Laser's 'YLS-AMB' series fiber lasers, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered the defendant to bear 90% of the costs of the infringement proceedings.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc. & BrainRobotics Inc.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The order summons the represented parties to an oral hearing scheduled for April 22, 2026, and sets non-extendable deadlines for the applicant to reply to the respondents' opposition by March 9, 2026, and for the respondents to surrebut by March 23, 2026.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.European Patent Office
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG challenged the European Patent Office's (EPO) decision rejecting its request for unitary effect for European Patent 3 327 608. The EPO had refused the request because the patent was not granted with the same claims for all 25 participating member states, as Malta could not be designated when the parent application was filed in 2005. The Unified Patent Court (Paris Central Division) dismissed the application, holding that the unitary effect must cover all participating member states at the time of grant and request, and that the refusal did not violate fundamental rights or non-discrimination principles.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG
This case concerns the disclosure of an expert report obtained through an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent No. 3 212 356 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court ordered that pricing information and bank details in invoices be redacted from the expert report before disclosure to the patent holder, while the remainder of the report was to be disclosed. The court also lifted the confidentiality order for the non-redacted portions in relation to the applicant.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 024 099 B1 concerning cable processing devices, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd. at the Productronica trade fair in Munich. Komax suspected that BOZHIWANG's 'BZW-3005' machine infringed claims 1, 7, and 9 of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering inspection of the machine and seizure of related documents at the trade fair stand, subject to extensive safeguards for the respondent's trade secrets.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brodrene Hartmann A/S) sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for infringement of European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1 concerning a display and distribution package for eggs, valid in Germany, France, and the Netherlands. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court dismissed the infringement action, partially revoked the patent (revoking claims 1, 6, and dependent claims 2-5, 7-8 while maintaining claims 9-13), and allocated costs accordingly.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a. o.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. The defendants' representatives demonstrated that one of their lead attorneys was unable to attend the scheduled oral hearing for personal reasons, and that substitution was not feasible due to the short notice and complexity of the case. The court granted the defendants' request and cancelled the oral hearing originally scheduled for October 16, 2025.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A. Menarini Diagnostics France SASU
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 1 962 668 B1. The court classified certain information contained in the defendants' opposition and related annexes as confidential under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure and restricted access to the unredacted versions to a limited number of identified persons on the claimants' side.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
The applicant, sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation of the respondent's 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell' machine exhibited at the EMO Messe Hannover 2025 trade fair. The applicant argued that access to the machine through normal commercial channels was impossible due to its high price (estimated well above EUR 100,000) and the respondent's exclusive, personalized distribution network. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the inspection to be carried out by a court bailiff and appointed expert at the respondent's trade fair stand.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning a request by the claimant, Dolby International AB, for simultaneous interpretation from German to English at an oral hearing in a patent infringement action. The court allowed Dolby to hire an interpreter at its own cost to use the existing interpretation equipment, but rejected the request to have the interpretation costs treated as procedural costs, finding that Dolby was not disproportionately disadvantaged by the German procedural language given that its legal representatives were German-speaking.
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.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.Inventronics GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1 in an infringement action. In light of ongoing settlement discussions, the court granted a joint request by both parties to stay the proceedings until resumption upon request of one of the parties, pursuant to Rules 295(d) and 296.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072 B1. Both parties jointly requested a change of the language of proceedings to the language of the patent. The court granted the request, ordering that the proceedings language be changed to English pursuant to Art. 49(3) EPGÜ and R. 321 RoP.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patents EP 3 398 487, EP 3 281 569, and EP 3 610 762. The court decided, with the agreement of both parties, to hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ, making an early decision on the course of action before the conclusion of the written procedure.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ and Rule 37.2 RoP, to jointly hear TRUMPF's infringement action and IPG Laser's counterclaim for revocation rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was made for reasons of procedural economy and to allow a unified interpretation of the patent by the same panel for both validity and infringement questions.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
Patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. Both parties withdrew their respective claims following an out-of-court settlement, and the court terminated the proceedings, ordering a 60% reimbursement of court fees to each party without a decision on representation costs.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd., Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff partially withdrew the action against Defendant 2 (Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH) following an out-of-court settlement. The court allowed the partial withdrawal, declared the proceedings against Defendant 2 terminated, and ruled on costs in accordance with the parties' agreement.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. Following a main decision largely favoring the plaintiff on infringement and maintaining the patent in restricted form, the plaintiff sought reimbursement of EUR 84,950 in costs. The defendant objected that the costs were disproportionate given the limited infringement period and modest economic significance. The court rejected the objections, finding the defendant failed to provide substantiated arguments on disproportionality, and ordered full reimbursement of the capped amount.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. and Others
This is an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1, brought by Evac Oy against six defendants. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the claimant and defendants 4 to 6 (S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH, Katharina Kiran Singh Kang, and Shaminder Singh Kang) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, while ordering that the proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 (Shanghai VacDrain, VD Solutions GmbH, and Yong Cao) continue.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 186 937. With the consent of the parties, the court granted the application of Defendants 2 to 4 (TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, and TP-Link Enterprises France) dated April 17, 2025, and ordered the stay of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295 lit. a) of the Rules of Procedure.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation against four TP-LINK entities. With the consent of the parties, the court ordered a stay of the proceedings against defendants 2 to 4 pursuant to Rule 295(a) RoP, based on the defendants' application dated March 23, 2025.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected a request by Siltronic AG to review an inspection and evidence preservation order concerning European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which relates to shaped saw wire with controlled curvature at bends used in semiconductor wafer cutting. The court held that the original order, which included inspection of premises and seizure of delivery notes and invoices, was appropriate to secure evidence of alleged infringement. The court also found that the existing confidentiality regime sufficiently protected the respondents' interests.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in proceedings regarding European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'direkt oder indirekt' from claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach to the case heading. The court granted the first correction as a clerical error but rejected the second, holding that parties are not entitled to have all attorneys from the same firm listed in the decision heading.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. and an unnamed specialist dealer at the IDS 2025 trade fair in Cologne. The applicant alleged that the respondents' 'DLyte' Compact Series machines (DLyte 1D, DLyte 10D, DLyte 100D) infringed its patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application in part, ordering an inspection of the DLyte 1D and DLyte 100D machines at the trade fair stand by an expert and court bailiff, subject to detailed procedural conditions, while rejecting certain additional requests.
Nichia Corporation v.Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 323 178 B1. The parties settled their infringement dispute during the written procedure, and the court confirmed the settlement. The court also ordered a partial reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff, amounting to 9,000 EUR, and set the value of the infringement action at 1,000,000 EUR.
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 37.2 RoP, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Hartmann Packaging A/S and the counterclaim for revocation filed by the Omni-Pac defendants. The judge-rapporteur was instructed to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The defendants, based in the USA, Netherlands, Germany, France, and Denmark, requested simultaneous interpretation from German to English for the oral hearing. The court granted the request to allow interpretation but ruled that the defendants must bear the costs themselves rather than having them treated as procedural costs.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1, which relates to a boost power factor correction (Boost-PFC) circuit. The court held that the accused LED driver embodiment did not infringe the patent because its capacitor did not satisfy the claimed decoupling element requirement, while also rejecting the defendants' validity attacks, including new arguments raised only at the oral hearing.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message functionality. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that the defendants' 'Barryvox S2' device infringed the patent, while rejecting the defendants' counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and damages, while partially dismissing the infringement claim and declining to order publication of the decision.
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.