Short Summary
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH had sued defendants Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for patent infringement, while the defendants had filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Following a January 14, 2025 decision largely favoring the plaintiff on infringement and dismissing the invalidity counterclaim, the defendants filed a cost assessment application on February 13, 2025 seeking reimbursement of EUR 9,732.21 in costs related to the infringement proceedings.
Detailed Summary
The plaintiff, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (a German company based in Taufkirchen), brought an infringement action against the defendants, Mammut Sports Group AG (a Swiss company based in Seon) and Mammut Sports Group GmbH (a German company based in Wolfertschwenden), concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The main infringement proceedings were conducted under case number UPC_CFI_16/2024. The defendants contested the use of the patent and additionally filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent (CC_17292/2024). The plaintiff opposed the revocation counterclaim and filed auxiliary requests for amendment of the patent (App_34230/2024).
On January 14, 2025, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a decision largely granting the infringement claim and dismissing the defendants' revocation counterclaim. The cost allocation decision, as corrected by an order dated January 27, 2025 (App_3399/2025), provided that the plaintiff bears 20% of the costs of the main action while each defendant bears 40%, and the defendants bear the costs of the revocation counterclaim in equal halves. The court set the dispute value at EUR 1,000,000 for both the main action and the counterclaim, and the cap on reimbursable costs at EUR 200,000 for each. Appeals against this decision (APL_12159/2025; APL_12161/2025 and APL_12864/2025) were pending before the Court of Appeal at the time of this decision.
On February 13, 2025, the defendants filed a cost assessment application seeking reimbursement of their costs for the infringement proceedings. The defendants' claimed costs included attorney fees and travel expenses for the defendants and their patent attorney for attendance at the oral hearing on November 26, 2024. Based on their cost breakdown, the defendants calculated their total recoverable costs at EUR 9,732.21 and formally requested the court to set the costs at this amount.
& Analysis:
The decision was rendered by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as the rapporteur (Berichterstatter). The proceedings were conducted in German. The matter concerns cost assessment proceedings under Article 69 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and Rules 150, 151, and 152 of the Rules of Procedure. The text of the judgment is incomplete as provided, cutting off at the description of the plaintiff's position ("Die Klägerin ist dem...").
Final Order & Ruling:
The defendants formally requested that the court set the costs at EUR 9,732.21. The full operative order and reasoning of the court are not contained in the provided text excerpt.
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 Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH vs Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.vsRespondent
This procedural order concerns the defendant's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to file a further pleading in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant sought to introduce a January 6, 2025 decision of the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office, which fully invalidated the corresponding Chinese patent CN201480013981.1 based on the same prior art references. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf, through Presiding Judge Thomas acting as Rapporteur, denied the application, finding it was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese decision without justification, that the decision was submitted only in Chinese rather than the German procedural language, and that allowing late submission would prejudice both the court's and the plaintiff's preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.
Düsseldorf, insbesondere Rechtsanwalt OlivervsRespondent
This case concerns renewed coercive measures against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for continued non-compliance with a December 2025 order concerning European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1, which relates to water filter devices with cartridges. Despite prior penalty orders, the defendant had failed to provide the required disclosure of sales information and allegedly continued to advertise the infringing products on websites targeting European markets. The Local Division Hamburg found the claimant's application for further penalties successful.
Amgen Inc.vsSanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes on key legal principles relating to claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The judgment establishes guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the standard for sufficiency including functional features, and the methodology for assessing inventive step.
Nokia Technologies Oy a.o.vsZhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy had sought an ex parte 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales before the Local Chamber Mannheim, which was granted on 20 April 2026 subject to a €600,000 security deposit. The applicants deposited the security on 21 April 2026. On 27 May 2026, with the respondents' consent, the applicants requested withdrawal of the application and release of the security. The Mannheim Local Chamber allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the full release of the €600,000 security deposit.
Bhagat Textile EngineersvsOerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
1 Numero di riferimento: UPC CoA_8/2025 APL_366/2025 Ordinanza della Corte d'appello del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti relativa a una istanza di svincolo della garanzia ai sensi della regola 352, paragrafo 2, del Regolamento di procedura emessa il 3 febbraio 2026 ISTANT
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.