Short Summary
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the bifurcation question under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, citing efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided by the same panel based on a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued on 14 April 2025 by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings UPC_CFI_99/2024 and UPC_CFI_392/2024, concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1. The claimant, Ona Patents SL (a Spanish company represented by its CEO Raúl Diaz Morales and represented by attorneys from Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte), brought an infringement action against multiple Apple entities: Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, and Apple Retail France EURL (all represented by attorneys from Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB). The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation.
The subject of the proceedings was the bifurcation question under Rule 37.1 RoP and Article 33(3) UPCA. Pursuant to Rule 37.2 RoP, the panel took an early decision on how to proceed under Article 33(3) UPCA before the end of the written procedure, after considering the parties' submissions and giving them the opportunity to be heard.
The panel, composed of Presiding Judge Thomas (acting as judge-rapporteur), legally qualified judge Dr Thom, and legally qualified judge Kokke, exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA. The court reasoned that a joint hearing was appropriate for reasons of efficiency and was preferable because it would allow both validity and infringement to be decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel of judges. The court noted that an early decision on bifurcation would set the framework for possible issues and enable the parties and the court to manage the case accordingly.
The order was issued with the consent of the parties. The Judge-Rapporteur was instructed to request the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate a technically qualified judge with appropriate qualifications and experience in the field of technology related to the patent in suit to the panel.
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 Ona Patents SL vs Apple Inc., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna Netherlands B.V. et. al
This is a Rule 105.5 procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur following an interim conference in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The claimant, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, asserts European Patent EP2590626 B1 against fifteen Moderna entities across multiple European jurisdictions. The interim conference was held online on 11 June 2026 to streamline and prepare the proceedings for the upcoming oral hearing, addressing topics suggested by both the Court and the parties.
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbHvsRespondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 April 2025 Applications: 8314/2025 8850/2025 8319/2025 8313/2025 8316/2025 8317/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Co
UPC Decision UPC-001047vsRespondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringing EP 3 655 341, owned by air up group GmbH, which protects a drinking device for retronasal reception of an aroma substance. The defendant, a Chinese company selling a competing drinking bottle with aroma pods, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court ordered the defendant to cease and desist from the infringing activities across UPC Member States, imposed a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns three consolidated patent infringement actions brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH involving European Patents Nos. 2 197 132, 3 024 163, and 2 584 854. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested leave to withdraw their respective actions and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40 percent partial refund of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Evac OyvsRespondent
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Evac Oy regarding European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1 against six defendants, including a Chinese company, German companies, and individual persons. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 6 (S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH, Katharina Kiran Singh Kang, and Shaminder Singh Kang) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure. The proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 (Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, and Yong Cao) were ordered to continue, and no cost decision was required as the parties had agreed on costs.
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.