in Dr
46 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
46 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message output during search operations. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The court found direct and indirect infringement by the accused 'Barryvox S2' device, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, information, and damages, while allocating costs predominantly to the plaintiff.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. The defendant, CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, requested extensions of the preliminary objection deadline and the deadline for filing a statement of defense and counterclaim. The court rejected both requests, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying an extension under the strict time regime of the Rules of Procedure.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against Optoma entities before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534. Before the defendants' deadline to respond or file a counterclaim for revocation, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement. The defendants consented to the withdrawal and the plaintiff's cost proposals, and the court issued an order terminating the proceedings.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court decided, pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by Grundfos Holding A/S and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. jointly before the same panel.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent No. 1 838 002 B1 relating to a programmable hybrid transmitter. The defendants filed nullity counterclaims. The Local Chamber Munich held that the independent claims 1 and 7 were anticipated by prior art document D3, declared the patent null and void for Germany, rejected the requests for amendment, and dismissed the infringement claim, ordering Avago to bear the costs.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning European Patent EP 3 339 920 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, confirmed the parties' cost agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 402 415 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the claimant withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, confirmed the parties' cost agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to the claimant.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1, which protects a sanitary tub installation with C-shaped rim and plastic foam profile strips. The court found that the defendant infringed the patent in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands through its shower tray products and profile strip sets, ordering injunctive relief, recall, removal from distribution channels, information disclosure, and provisional damages of EUR 10,000. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful, with the patent being maintained in amended form, resulting in a 50/50 cost split on the counterclaim and 15/85 split on the infringement claim.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff Dolby International AB sought a determination that the time limits for filing its reply to the statement of defense and its response to the counterclaim for revocation began running on May 28, 2024, when it was granted access to confidential information, or alternatively, an extension of those deadlines to July 28, 2024. The court extended both deadlines to July 28, 2024, finding that the initial restriction of access to confidential passages of the defendants' pleadings constituted an exceptional case justifying an extension, but rejected the request to deem the time limits as having started on May 28, 2024.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd & CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 2 011 218 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ and Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG and the counterclaim for revocation filed by the CUPOWER defendants together in a single proceeding. The decision was based on efficiency considerations, the moderate complexity of the technology, and the need for early assignment of a technically qualified judge.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order permitting service of the statement of claim on the defendant at a trade fair stand in Amsterdam. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, a trade fair stand can constitute a temporary place of business where service may be effected, provided that deliveries are also being promoted there, which is typically the case.
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.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The claimant, 10x Genomics, Inc., filed an infringement action against Curio Bioscience Inc. in German, but both parties subsequently agreed to switch the procedural language to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The court approved the joint request and ordered the proceedings to continue in English.
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.