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 Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, and Apple Retail France EURL is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.vsAdvanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered the referral of a counterclaim for revocation and the corresponding patent amendment request to the Central Chamber Paris. The court reasoned that since nearly all attacks against the patent in suit (EP 4 074 373) were already being pursued in a prior central revocation action filed by the first defendant, efficiency considerations favored having the Central Chamber decide on the counterclaim as well. The defendants' objections regarding the risk of divergent decisions, change of language, and the advanced stage of the central proceedings were rejected.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C.vsCloudflare Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) had filed a subsidiary application under R. 191 Alt. 2 RoP against third party Cloudflare Inc. for transmission of information, and then sought a preliminary finding that the requested information was not decisive. The court held that such a preliminary finding request is inadmissible, but interpreted the plaintiffs' conditional withdrawal as making the R. 191 application itself conditional on the information being decisive, and stayed the decision on the information request and related applications.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbHvsHenle Baumaschinentechnik GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 770 330 B1, in which the court granted the claimant's application for an extension of time limits under Rule 9(3) RoP. The claimant had received a USB stick containing key annexes (MW 3 to MW 5, MW 17, and MW 27) only on April 15, 2025, nearly two weeks after the defendant's late submission to the court registry, justifying the extension of deadlines for reply to the statement of defense and counterclaim for revocation from May 28, 2025 to June 16, 2025.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbHvsTandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. After the parties settled the patent infringement action and counterclaims for revocation through three separate settlements following the oral hearing, both the plaintiffs and defendants applied for partial reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.11 and R. 370.9(c) of the Rules of Procedure. The court rejected all applications, holding that because the oral procedure had already been completed at the time of settlement, no reimbursement was available.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbHvsVantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, and Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. With the consent of all parties, the court ordered the stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure based on the plaintiff's application dated April 9, 2025.
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.