statterin soll die Pr
4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
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.
Quantificare S.A. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Inc., Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l., and Esthetec SAS
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure to decide early, before the close of written proceedings, that it would hear both the infringement action filed by Quantificare S.A. and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA. The decision was made for reasons of procedural economy and to ensure a unified interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
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.
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.