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
1. Natural person: initial case 2. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co. Ltd. (Streithelferin): joined the case latervsSWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
The Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a revocation action against European Patent 2 643 717 ('Farbmischende Sammeloptik'), maintaining the patent in its Art. 105a EPC-limited form. The plaintiff and intervener Chainzone Technology had sought full revocation for lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, unallowable extension, and insufficient disclosure. The court held that the subject-matter of claim 1 in both the granted and limited forms was patentable over all cited p
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.vsDolby International AB
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns appeals by Roku against the rejection of its objections (Einsprüche) by the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the grounds for objection under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure are exhaustive, whether the UPC's jurisdictional framework is compatible with EU law, whether the Administrative Committee could replace London with Milan as a Central Division location, and how court fees apply to multiple appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal upheld the rejection of Roku's objections, finding them inadmissible or unfounded.
Centripetal LimitedvsKeysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court challenging the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to allow a further exchange of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in an infringement action concerning EP 3 821 580. Centripetal argued the refusal was manifestly wrong because it would prevent them from addressing Keysight's newly released AI Stack software, creating a risk of res judicata. The Court of Appeal held the request was admissible but denied it, finding the lower court's exercise of discretion was not manifestly wrong given the advanced stage of proceedings and the time taken by Centripetal to bring the request.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.,vsZapp AG a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 805 415. The plaintiff Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. raised an objection of delay under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, combined with a precautionary application for permission to exchange further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP. The plaintiff argued that the defendants Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH had introduced entirely new and extensive factual submissions in their reply (Duplik) to the amendment request in the nullity proceedings dated April 13, 2026, particularly regarding the main request for nullity rather than the auxiliary requests.
LIFE 365 S.R.L., LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A.vsRespondent
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande de retrait (R. 265 RdP) d’une demande d’intervention (R. 313 RoP) rendue le 21 août 2025 DEMANDERESSES LIFE 365 S.R.L., Via Alexander Fleming, 22 - 47122 Forlì, Italie représentée par Michele De
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.