Short Summary
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the admissibility of the Claimant's unsolicited submission of 1 September 2025. The court admitted the translation of main requests and clarifications regarding direct infringement auxiliary requests, but rejected as inadmissible the new auxiliary requests concerning indirect infringement, finding that the Claimant failed to justify late filing under R. 36 RoP.
Detailed Summary
This Procedural Order was issued on 14 October 2025 by Judge Dr Thom acting as judge-rapporteur at the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings UPC_CFI_100/2024 and UPC_CFI_411/2024 concerning European patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The Claimant, Ona Patents SL, filed an unsolicited 57-page submission on 1 September 2025, which the court divided into two parts: (1) translations of the main requests and clarifications that injunctive relief was also sought for direct infringement under auxiliary requests related to the amended form of the patent, and (2) new auxiliary requests concerning indirect infringement and auxiliary requests relating to the amended form of the patent concerning indirect infringement.
Regarding the first part, the court found it admissible. Although the Claimant could have been more careful in translating its main requests and formulating corresponding auxiliary requests in its Reply, the interpretation of previous statements suggested these requests were already sought. The court noted this clarification would have been addressed at the latest during the oral hearing, and since this part did not alter the proceedings in content, the Defendants were not required to file a response.
Regarding the second part concerning indirect infringement, the court took a different view. It rejected the Claimant's argument that the new requests merely provided alternative legal characterization of the same underlying acts, holding that indirect patent infringement is a distinct type of infringement with different requirements under Art. 26 UPCA compared to direct infringement. The court noted that even if such requests did not constitute an amendment to the case, new arguments would be necessary to substantiate Art. 26 UPCA requirements. Critically, the Claimant filed outside any case management regime without first submitting a R. 36-request explaining why it was unable to file its brief earlier within the Reply time period, as required by the court's prior order in UPC_CFI_733/2024, UPC_CFI_255/2025 (TRUMPF v. IPG Laser). The court further noted that the Defendants had already pointed out in their Statement of Defence that the allegation of direct infringement of mobile phones was inconclusive for the alleged realization of feature group 9.12 (controller) regarding accessory devices not accused by the Claimant.
The final order: (1) the auxiliary requests for indirect infringement (B.) and the auxiliary requests relating to the amended form of the patent (C.) concerning indirect infringement were declared not admissible and not taken into account; (2) the Defendants' auxiliary request under R. 36 RoP was dismissed; (3) no interim conference would be held, with reference to the Panel's order of 13 October 2025 regarding the scope of the dispute; and (4) the written procedure was closed.
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 Google Ireland Limited o. a. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H.vsBEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315 before the Local Chamber Munich. Following an oral hearing on January 30, 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to confirm the settlement. The defendant consented to the settlement and both parties jointly requested its confirmation, confidentiality of its details, and noted that costs were already settled within the agreement.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.vsBROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., brought an infringement action against multiple AYLO entities and related companies alleging literal and, alternatively, equivalent indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680, which concerns a method for presenting a rate-adaptive data stream. The defendants filed a counterclaim for invalidity. The Local Chamber Mannheim addressed key legal questions regarding the doctrine of equivalents, the legal interest in isolated removal of dependent subclaims via nullity counterclaims, and the appropriate number of auxiliary requests under Rule 30.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure.
CA, Inc., gesetzlich vertreten durch das Board of Directors,, fornia 95131, USAvsDeutsche Telekom AG, vertreten durch ihren Vorstand, Friedri, T-Systems International GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsf
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants for protection of confidential information under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure in an infringement dispute regarding European Patent EP 1 934 794 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the request in part, classifying sales figures, infrastructure details, enforcement consequences, and internal technical and commercial information as confidential, but rejected protection for customer names and customer-related information on the ground that such information was already publicly available. The preliminary order of June 17, 2026 was partially lifted to the extent it had covered customer information.
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsHMD Global Oy
An order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 667 981, establishing a general confidentiality regime under Rule 262A RoP for FRAND licence negotiations between the parties. Both parties had coordinated out-of-court and welcomed the proposed approach. The order classifies publicly unknown details of the confidential licence negotiations as confidential, sets out procedures for marking and objecting to confidentiality designations, restricts access to designated persons, and provides for potential periodic penalty payments for culpable breaches.
Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH - Raimund-Beck-Straße 1 - 527vsBAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH – Eibachstraße 15 - 57413, Jochen Bühling, KRIEGER MES Rechtsanwälte PartmbB.
The Central Division (Munich) of the Unified Patent Court partially invalidated European Patent EP 4 283 140 B1 concerning a fastening element made of wood and/or wood materials. The plaintiff Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH sought nullity of claims 1, 2, 5, and 8–11 on grounds of inadmissible extension, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court held the nullity action partially successful, declaring the patent partially invalid to the extent it exceeded the subject matter of auxilia
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.