Short Summary
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff Tridonic GmbH & Co KG brought an infringement action against CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together under Article 33(3)(a) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Detailed Summary
The proceedings concern European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1 and were brought before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The plaintiff is Tridonic GmbH & Co KG, based in Dornbirn, Austria, represented by its managing directors Hugo Rohner, Alexander Stieger, and Alexander Jankovsky, and represented by counsel from the firm Mitscherlich PartmbB in Munich. The defendants are CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, based in Shenzhen, People's Republic of China, and CUPOWER Europe GmbH, based in Hemer, Germany, represented by its managing director Dirk Politowski. The plaintiff filed an infringement action, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in suit. The panel consisted of Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified judge Agergaard, and legally qualified judge Dr. Schilling, who acted in substitution for legally qualified judge Dr. Thom. The language of proceedings was German.
The order addressed the procedural question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, which governs the handling of infringement actions combined with revocation counterclaims. The parties raised no objections to a particular course of action, allowing the court to decide this question before the close of the written proceedings. The relevant provisions were Article 33(3)(a) of the EPG Agreement and Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, which permits an earlier decision on the procedural approach if the panel considers the parties' submissions and grants them the right to be heard.
& Analysis
The court reasoned that, although Rule 37.1 of the Rules of Procedure generally requires the panel to decide on the approach under Article 33(3) as soon as possible after the close of written proceedings, Rule 37.2 allows for an earlier decision. The Local Chamber found such an early decision justified and necessary due to the current situation of the court, which was still in its early stages of operation. Some members of the panel were employed only on a part-time or case-by-case basis, making it procedurally economical to obtain the assignment of the technically qualified judge as early as possible for scheduling purposes. The court noted a significant risk of delay if the technical judge were only added during the interim procedure and was already unavailable for other commitments. The court further reasoned that a joint hearing of the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim was sensible for reasons of efficiency and substantive advantage, as it would allow decisions on both the validity and the infringement questions based on a uniform interpretation by the same panel in the same composition. The court emphasized that such a unified approach was all the more justified where, as in the present case, the complexity of the technology at issue was rather moderate within the known spectrum of patent disputes and the number of validity attacks was manageable.
Final Order & Ruling
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf, after hearing the parties, ordered that it would hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) of the EPG Agreement. The judge-rapporteur was instructed to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel. The order reference number was ORD_36553/2.
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 Tridonic GmbH & Co KG vs CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.