statter auf einen mit einer Begr
6 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
6 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH & expert e-Commerce GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on August 21, 2025, disregarding a post-hearing submission filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. after the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. Viosys had submitted a Rule 9 filing along with a post-hearing brief summarizing its arguments in response to the court's introduction. The court held that under Rule 36 RoP, further submissions require prior court approval and are not permitted after the oral hearing, when the case is ready for decision.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 605 534 B1. The court granted the plaintiff Dolby International AB's application under R. 36 RoP for leave to file a further written submission addressing the FRAND objection raised by the defendants Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. The court found the additional submission appropriate for reasons of fairness, equity, efficiency, and the right to be heard, noting no prejudice to the defendants and no procedural delay.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The court rejected both parties' applications under Rule 36 RoP for leave to exchange further pleadings in the infringement proceedings. The plaintiff had improperly introduced new arguments about equivalent patent infringement in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation without first obtaining leave, and its subsequent formal application was filed too late and lacked sufficient justification.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application by the defendant under R 36 RoP for leave to file a further pleading. The defendant sought to introduce a January 6, 2025 decision of the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office that fully invalidated the corresponding Chinese patent based on the same prior art. The court rejected the application, finding the request was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese decision without justification, the decision was submitted only in Chinese rather than the German procedural language, and granting leave would prejudice proper preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, in which the plaintiff Ortovox sought leave under Rule 36 RoP to file further pleadings after learning that the defendants were also offering the 'Barryvox S' with voice control, in addition to the previously attacked 'Barryvox S2'. The court rejected the application, finding that the plaintiff was already protected by confirmed provisional measures regarding the Barryvox S2, and that the Barryvox S was not part of the proceedings, requiring further submissions and response time that could not be accommodated before the scheduled oral hearing.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 263 098. The Apple entities appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellants' further submission filed on August 15, 2024, because the Rule 36 application seeking leave to file additional pleadings was submitted after the interim proceedings had already been closed on August 13, 2024.
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.