Executive Summary
In a procedural order concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2 352 431 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues of trade secret protection. The court granted the request to classify certain information regarding the design and functioning of the attacked embodiments as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the mechanism for protecting sensitive commercial data during complex UPC litigation involving major medical device manufacturers.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court of First Instance granted the application for protecting confidential information under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262A RoP, finding that the grounds significantly outweighed the interest in full public access. The court also lifted prior access restrictions on certain documents submitted by 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 Hologic, Inc. vs Siemens Healthineers AG; Siemens Healthcare GmbH; Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V.; Siemens Healthcare SAS is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril GmbH a.o.
In this cost decision case, the UPC Local Division Munich ruled in favor of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH and its affiliates. The court awarded a substantial sum of EUR 771,649.56 to cover Edwards' legal costs incurred during the proceedings related to EP patent 3669828. The ruling emphasized that given the overall complexity of the case, the judge-rapporteur has broad discretion and may award costs even if specific disputed elements (like travel details) are marginal.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In this UPC case, Avago Technologies sued Tesla entities for infringement of EP1838002. Concurrently, the defendants filed counterclaims seeking revocation of the patent. The court issued an order consolidating all claims—the main action and both counterclaims—to be heard together before the Munich Local Division. This procedural step streamlines the litigation process by addressing infringement and validity simultaneously.
Mammut Sports Group AGvsOrtovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters within a patent infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox regarding an LVS device (EP 3 466 498). The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals concerning interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. While the core dispute was about patent validity/infringement, the ruling ultimately dismissed Mammut's appeal and ordered them to cover additional provisional costs.
Meril Italy SrlvsEdwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a significant UPC decision, the Central Division rejected revocation actions against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning its prosthetic heart valve patent (EP '825). The claimants argued for invalidity based on lack of novelty and inventive step. However, the Court maintained the patent's validity after accepting an amendment submitted by the defendant, underscoring the importance of procedural compliance in UPC litigation.
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addressed a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor) seeking broad access to pleadings and evidence in ongoing UPC infringement cases. The Court denied this access, emphasizing that the integrity of private civil litigation must be protected until proceedings conclude. While denying the immediate request, the Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing the importance of clarifying the legal interpretation regarding public access under RoP 262.1(b).
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.