Executive Summary
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement and revocation action against CUPOWER for allegedly infringing its Boost-PFC circuit patent (EP 2 011 218 B1) used in LED drivers. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision underscores the high bar required to prove infringement or successfully challenge a granted European patent within the unified system.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
While the decision details focus heavily on procedural matters (rejection of late submissions), the core outcome is the dismissal of both the infringement suit and the revocation counterclaim. The court ruled against the claimant regarding patent validity and infringement in this instance.
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
Network System Technologies LLC.vsAudi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Audi AG sought to accelerate the appeal process against an earlier dismissal of its security for costs application. The court rejected this request, finding that it was too vague and lacked sufficient justification to warrant shortening deadlines. This highlights the strict requirements for requesting expedited proceedings within the UPC framework.
Sanofi SA (and associated Sanofi entities)vsSTADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, and other defendants
In this complex pharmaceutical infringement case, Sanofi initiated proceedings against several competitors regarding the validity of EP patent 2 493 466. The court issued a procedural order summoning party experts to address critical questions concerning the inventive step and the reasonable expectation of success in oncological clinical trials (specifically referencing the TROPIC study). This hearing will focus on whether sufficient data existed at the priority date to justify the trial's progression, making it a significant case for pharmaceutical patent practitioners.
Centripetal LimitedvsPalo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this procedural order, Centripetal Limited sought a preservation of evidence (Saisie) against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., alleging highly probable infringement of EP 3 821 580 related to network security solutions. The applicant requested extensive measures, including real-time monitoring and seizure of digital data at the defendant's premises. Despite the case being referred back by the Court of Appeal (CoA), the Local Division in Mannheim ultimately rejected the application for interim measures.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.vsAdvanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
In this UPC case, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. initiated proceedings against Advanced Bionics entities regarding patent EP 4 074 373 B1. However, the parties mutually agreed to withdraw the claim. The court formally granted the withdrawal and terminated the case. This decision highlights how mutual settlements can lead to a swift conclusion of complex UPC litigation.
Promosome LLCvsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural matter concerning a patent infringement action involving EP 2 401 365, the UPC Court addressed the request for security for costs. The Claimant, Promosome LLC, was ordered to deposit EUR 1.5 million to cover potential legal expenses of the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer group). Crucially, while the court granted the security requirement based on party agreement, it firmly rejected the premature demand by the Defendants for a default judgment under Rule 355 RoP, maintaining procedural integrity.
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.