Short Summary
The claimant, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 258 692 B1 against multiple Hisense and Gorenje entities. Following a settlement, the claimant applied to withdraw the action, with all parties consenting and agreeing to bear their own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at €2,500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€14,400) to the claimant.
Detailed Summary
This case was decided by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 16 February 2026, under case number UPC_CFI_716/2025. The claimant was Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), a Korean entity represented by its president Mr. Bang Seung Chan, based in Daejeon, Korea. The defendants were six entities: Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH (Germany), ATAG Nederland B.V. (Netherlands), Gorenje gospodinjski aparati, d.o.o (Slovenia), Hisense Visual Technology Co, Ltd (China), Hisense France SAS (France), and Hisense Italia S.r.l. (Italy). The patent in suit was European Patent No. EP 3 258 692 B1. The proceedings were conducted in English, and the panel consisted of Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified Judge Dr. Thom (acting as judge-rapporteur), and legally qualified Judge Johansson.
The subject of the decision was Rule 265 RoP – Withdrawal. Due to a settlement reached between the parties, the claimant submitted an application to withdraw the infringement action against all defendants. The claimant also requested confirmation that it must pay the court fees, that each party bears its own costs (with no requests for cost compensation), and that 60% of the court fees be reimbursed to the claimant. The defendants consented to the motion to withdraw the action as well as to the claimant's motion regarding the costs.
The court noted that the decision followed the parties' jointly expressed will and that no cost decision was required due to the parties' declarations. The order to reimburse the claimant 60% of the court fees was based on Rules 370.11 and 370.9(b)(i) RoP, as the action had been settled before the closure of the written procedure.
The court ordered: (I) permission for the withdrawal of the action and declared the proceedings closed; (II) entry of the decision in the Register; (III) no need for a cost decision since all parties agreed to bear their own costs; (IV) the value in dispute set at €2,500,000; and (V) reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€14,400) to the claimant.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) vs Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH a. o. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Aesculap AGvsShanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. & Others
Aesculap AG sued Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd. for direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Following an oral hearing on June 17, 2026, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 reached a settlement. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf confirmed the settlement under Rule 365(1) of the Rules of Procedure, ordered confidentiality of the settlement details, and declared the proceedings terminated between those parties, while the case continues against defendant 2.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbHvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1 and addresses applications under Rule 370.11 of the Rules of Procedure for partial reimbursement of court fees. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, filed a patent infringement action on December 27, 2023, against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and Air Liquide Healthcare-related companies. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on April 19, 2024, and an oral hearing was held on April 9, 2025.
22, 80336 München, Deutschland, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Volkmar Henke, Rechtsanwalt Dr. TilmanvsOptoma Deutschland GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführe, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Andreas Kramer, Powell Gilbert, Königsal-
A lawyer (Lars-Oliver Eggersdorfer of Boehmert & Boehmert) applied for access to the court files of a concluded patent infringement case between Dolby International AB and three Optoma entities concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534, citing professional interest in FRAND issues related to audio coding. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found the application admissible and partially justified, granting limited access while protecting confidential information regarding out-of-court licensing negotiations.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.vsMicron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC.vsRespondent
This case concerned an application for provisional measures filed by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in relation to European Patent EP 1 957 544 B1. The applicant withdrew its application for preliminary measures with the defendant's consent, and the court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the applicant.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.