Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, filed a patent infringement action against six defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. Defendants 4 (Dinno Santé s.a.i., France) and 5 (Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., Netherlands) requested simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for April 9, 2025, citing insufficient German language skills of their attending representatives.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in case UPC_CFI_504/2023, concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs are F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (a Swiss company based in Basel) and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (a German company based in Mannheim). They filed a patent infringement action in German as the procedural language. The defendants include six entities: Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. (USA), Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. (Netherlands), VitalAire GmbH (Germany), Dinno Santé s.a.i. (France), Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V. (Netherlands), and Rubin Medical ApS (Denmark). The defendants are represented by different legal teams, with Defendants 1, 2, and 6 represented by Taylor Wessing, and Defendants 3, 4, and 5 represented by Hoyng ROKH Monegier.
The subject of this order is Rule 109.1 of the Rules of Procedure regarding simultaneous interpretation at the oral hearing. On March 6, 2025, Defendants 4 and 5 (Dinno Santé s.a.i. and Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V.) filed a request for simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for April 9, 2025. They argued that their attending representatives did not possess sufficient German language skills to follow the oral proceedings in the required scope. Specifically, their French participants were not sufficiently familiar with the German language to follow and understand the oral hearing, particularly given the complexity of the entire technical and legal subject matter. The text indicates that at least one of the attending participants was not adequately proficient in German.
& Analysis: The order was issued by the legally qualified judge Dr. Schumacher as the rapporteur. The procedural language of the case is German. The order addresses the procedural rights of parties whose representatives may not be sufficiently proficient in the language of proceedings to follow complex technical and legal arguments during oral hearings.
Final Order & Ruling: The document is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued on March 14, 2025, dealing with the request for simultaneous interpretation under Rule 109.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The full reasoning and disposition of the court regarding the interpretation request is contained in the order, though the provided text is truncated before the complete ruling is shown.
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 Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
NEC CorporationvsShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et. al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 against multiple defendants. On 16 December 2025, the claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, with each party bearing its own costs and seeking reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 11,400) to the claimant.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsRespondent
This case concerned a fee refund dispute following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and counterclaims after an out-of-court settlement. The parties requested a 60% refund of court fees, but the presiding judge initially granted only 40% under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff sought review to obtain the higher 60% refund, and the defendants joined this request. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the 40% refund, holding that the complex and intensively pursued nature of the dispute constituted an exceptional case under Rule 370.9(e).
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINEvsHELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2023-11-20) under reference UPC-001677, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE appeared in dispute with HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
UPC Decision UPC-001036vsRespondent
The applicant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, sought interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 before the Local Division Munich. After the court issued an ex parte order on December 9, 2024, which had not yet been served on the respondent, the applicant withdrew its application for interim measures on January 3, 2025. The court allowed the withdrawal without hearing the respondent, holding that the prior ex parte order did not constitute a final decision ending the instance because the review period under Rule 212.3 RoP had not yet begun.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KGvsALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This case concerns a review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure of an ex parte order for evidence preservation and inspection issued on February 3, 2025. The applicant, Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG, sought evidence preservation measures against ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH in connection with European Patent EP 3 083 107. The respondent challenged the order, arguing that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of patent infringement and the risk of loss of evidence. The court rejected the respondent's request to lift the order, finding that the applicant had presented all reasonably available evidence to support its claim of patent infringement.
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.