Judge Profile

statterin Dr

7 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

7 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent pending · Aug 21, 2025

Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Inventronics GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · ORD_35179/2025

Tridonic GmbH & Co KG initiated infringement proceedings against Inventronics GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC. However, recognizing that both parties were engaged in ongoing settlement discussions, the court issued an order suspending the entire case. This decision allows the parties to resolve their dispute outside of litigation while maintaining the legal status quo.

patent pending · Aug 4, 2025

CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · ORD_32729/2025

In this procedural order, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf addressed the complex interplay between an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning several coffee system patents. The court decided to handle both claims jointly under Article 33(3)(a) EPC, streamlining the proceedings. This early decision was deemed efficient given the moderate technical complexity of the subject matter.

patent partially granted · May 2, 2025

Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · App_20487/2025

In a significant procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber addressed the complex litigation involving Evac Oy and multiple defendants regarding vacuum drainage equipment patents. The court formally confirmed a settlement reached between the claimant and three of the five respondents (Respondents 4-6). Crucially, the proceedings against the remaining primary defendants (1, 2, and 3) were allowed to continue, indicating that the core infringement dispute remains active.

patent denied · Apr 16, 2025

Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · App_65278/2024

This UPC decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning evidence preservation and inspection related to the patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which covers specialized saw wires used in semiconductor manufacturing. The claimant sought to inspect facilities of Siltronic AG (and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG) to gather evidence regarding the use of patented saw wire types. Despite acknowledging the general principles of evidence preservation, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately rejected the application for an inspection and evidence-gathering order.

patent denied · Oct 11, 2024

Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · App_54390/2024

In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed a request for deadline extensions filed by CAN Srl Airxcel Europe in an infringement case concerning EP 1 788 320 B1. The court strictly rejected both the preliminary opposition and statement of defense extension requests. The decision underscores the UPC's commitment to timely proceedings, requiring parties to meet deadlines unless a compelling exception is demonstrated.

patent partially granted · Jun 24, 2024

Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS FRANCE Société à responsabilité limitée

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · App_34724/2024

In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for deadline extensions in an infringement case involving Dolby International AB and ASUS entities. The core issue was balancing the standard two-month response period against the need to protect confidential business secrets under R. 262A VerfO. The court found that restricting access initially constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the extension of deadlines, thereby upholding procedural fairness for the claimant.

patent granted · Jun 17, 2024

M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · App_36031/2024

In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court addressed the validity of serving a statement of claim at an international trade fair. The court affirmed that a temporary business presence, such as a booth at a major exhibition, qualifies as a valid place for service of process under UPC rules. This decision is significant for patent practitioners involved in cross-border litigation, confirming practical methods for initiating proceedings against foreign entities.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →