Short Summary
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 353 901 in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation brought by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against four TP-LINK entities. With the consent of the parties, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered a stay of the proceedings against Defendants 2 to 4 (TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, and TP-Link Enterprises France) pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the defendants' application dated March 23, 2025.
Detailed Summary
The matter concerns European Patent No. EP 3 353 901 and was before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The plaintiff, Atlas Global Technologies GmbH, represented by its managing director Frank Beel and based in Munich, was represented by attorneys from Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB. The defendants were four TP-LINK entities: (1) TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. (Singapore), (2) TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V. (Netherlands), (3) TP-Link Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf), and (4) TP-Link Enterprises France (France). Defendants 2 to 4 were represented by Dr. Tobias J. Hessels of Clifford Chance Partnerschaft mbB. The proceedings were conducted in German, and the case combined an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation.
The subject of the order was an application for a stay of proceedings under Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure. The defendants filed an application on March 23, 2025 (App_14179/2024) seeking a stay of the proceedings against Defendants 2 to 4, along with all associated sub-files and proceedings. The matter was resolved by agreement between the parties rather than through contested adjudication.
& Analysis: The order was issued by the panel consisting of Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified Judge Dr. Thom, and legally qualified Judge Mlakar. Given that the application for a stay was made with the consent of the parties, the Chamber did not need to engage in substantive analysis of the grounds for the stay under Rule 295(a). The procedural prerequisites for granting the stay were satisfied through the parties' agreement.
Final Order & Ruling: On April 17, 2025, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered, with the consent of the parties, that the proceedings be stayed against Defendants 2 to 4 along with all associated sub-files and proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the defendants' application of March 23, 2025 (App_14179/2024). The order was issued in Düsseldorf and digitally signed by all three judges on April 16, 2025.
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 TP-Link Deutschland GmbH vs Atlas Global Technologies GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.vsRespondent
Procedural order concerning European Patent No. 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. Following a third party's (Erik Krahbichler) withdrawal of his application for access to the file, the defendant Meril Life Sciences withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. The Presiding Judge permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential.
Syngenta LimitedvsSumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited sought to revoke a preliminary measures order (ORD 47657/2024) against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited, arguing that the underlying main proceedings on the merits were not timely started within the non-extendable deadlines under Rule 213.1 RoP. The Local Division Munich dismissed the application, holding that the proceedings were validly started when the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024, and that Rule 15(2) RoP does not require court fees to have been physically received by the Court before the deadline expires.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KGvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'directly or indirectly' in claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach in the case heading. The court partially granted the application, correcting the clerical error regarding the struck-through phrase but rejecting the request to add another attorney as it did not constitute an obvious inaccuracy.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.vs10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This case concerns an order by the Court of Appeal regarding coercive penalties in proceedings involving European Patent 4 108 782. The court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction order retroactively removes the legal basis for subsequent decisions ordering payment of coercive penalties for alleged violations occurring before the setting aside. The Court of Appeal held that the setting aside of a first-instance preliminary injunction order under Art. 75(1) EPGÜ and Rule 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the order is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning, thereby eliminating the legal basis for any subsequent coercive penalty decisions.
Discord Netherlands B.V.vsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 716 655. The defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V., belong to the same group of companies and requested harmonization of time periods for submitting their Statements of Defence and lodging any Counterclaim for Revocation, to which the claimant consented. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 2 July 2025 for both defendants.
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.