Short Summary
Unified Patent Court decision.
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 N.V. Nutricia vs Nestle Health is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Knaus Tabbert AGvsYellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
This is a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a first-instance decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The first-instance court had found that Knaus Tabbert infringed European Patent EP 3 356 109 (relating to a vehicle frame with foam resin structural parts) and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and provisional damages. The Court of Appeal rejected all of Knaus Tabbert's requests, holding that ordering security for enforcement is discretionary and that facts requiring such security must be raised at first instance.
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsMediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd requested that certain information in its complaint be classified as confidential and that all participants in the proceedings be obligated to maintain confidentiality, including after the proceedings conclude. The court granted the request, classifying the identified information as confidential and ordering that it be kept confidential by all persons involved in the proceedings.
Viking Arm ASvsStanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Inc., and Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH
Viking Arm AS filed an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities concerning European Patent EP3953541, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently agreed to withdraw their respective actions, and the court declared the proceedings closed without issuing a costs decision.
Maxell, Ltd.vsSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in consolidated proceedings (CFI_196/2025 and CFI_665/2025) concerning European patent EP 2 403 266. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 30 April 2026, addressing case management matters including the value of proceedings, exhibit submissions, confidentiality, limitation of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and scheduling of the oral hearing for 23 July 2026.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd.vsInsulet Corporation
Insulet Corporation filed an application for confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP regarding attorney's fees and expenses incurred in proceedings for a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. relating to European Patent EP4201327. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) partially granted the application, holding that invoices from Insulet's law firm could be protected as confidential but the internal breakdown of costs and billable hours could not, and that the confidentiality club must include at least one natural person from each party.
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.