Executive Summary
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed an application for rectification concerning EP 3 065 184 B1. The court dismissed the request, finding that the original decision was accurate and did not contain any clerical mistakes or 'obvious slips.' This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of Rule 353 RoP regarding when a party can seek to amend a judicial order.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court confirmed that under Rule 353 RoP, rectification is limited to correcting clerical mistakes, calculation errors, or obvious slips—meaning a deviation from the Court’s actual intention. The application failed because the order was accurate and did not contain any such error.
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 Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. vs Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a request by VIVO to stay the main infringement proceedings and grant an extension of time limits in light of pending appeals regarding confidentiality orders and jurisdictional challenges (PO). The Court of Appeal ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure. The ruling reinforces that specialized provisions like R. 21.2 RoP are narrowly construed and that procedural management requests must generally be directed to the Court of First Instance.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.vsAmgen N.V. a.o. (including its subsidiaries and affiliates)
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Amgen's biosimilar product, BEKEMV®, which treats paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). The UPC Local Division dismissed Alexion's application for provisional measures. The court ruled that while infringement could be established, the patent's validity could not be proven with sufficient certainty, particularly due to concerns regarding insufficient disclosure of the claims. This decision highlights the high bar required in UPC preliminary injunction proceedings when patent validity is contested.
LiNA Medical AGvsSchultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
This Düsseldorf Local Division order addresses procedural issues arising from an application to preserve evidence in a medical device patent case. The court emphasized that defendants must actively utilize provided CMS access codes and appoint representatives promptly if they wish to comment on confidentiality interests related to expert reports. Since the respondent failed to log into the CMS, the court proceeded with disclosing the unredacted expert description to the applicant while simultaneously revoking the evidence preservation measures unless the main infringement proceedings were quickly initiated.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KGvsALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a challenge by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH against an earlier order issued to preserve evidence and conduct inspections regarding patent EP 3 083 107. The court confirmed its initial ruling, finding that Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG had presented sufficient grounds for the preventive measures. Crucially, the court emphasized that the respondent's deliberate lack of cooperation in providing specific technical details justified the order, even if a direct risk of evidence destruction was not explicitly proven.
Gowling WLGvsMerz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France-Viatris Santé
This procedural order addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a third-party firm of UPC representatives, seeking access to the case file in an ongoing provisional measures dispute between Merz and Viatris. The Court balanced the need for transparency with the protection of confidential information. Access was granted selectively, allowing the applicant to review extracts relevant to the legal issue of 'unreasonable delay,' while ensuring personal data was anonymized.
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.