Short Summary
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1 in an infringement action. In light of ongoing settlement discussions, the court granted a joint request by both parties to stay the proceedings until resumption upon request of one of the parties, pursuant to Rules 295(d) and 296.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Detailed Summary
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on August 21, 2025, in case UPC_CFI_580/2025 (application number App_35159/2025, main file ACT_30657/2025). The claimant is Tridonic GmbH & Co KG, based in Dornbirn, Austria, represented by attorneys from Hoffmann Eitle. The defendant is Inventronics GmbH, based in Garching bei München, Germany, represented by attorneys from Krieger Mes Partnerschaft mbB. The patent in dispute is European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1, and the action is an infringement action (Verletzungsklage). The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas, Legally Qualified Judge Voß (acting in substitution for Rapporteur Dr. Thom), and Legally Qualified Judge Agergaard. The language of proceedings is German. The subject of the order is an application under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure seeking a stay of proceedings. Given the ongoing settlement negotiations between the parties, the court granted the joint request of both parties and ordered that the proceedings be stayed until resumption upon the request of one of the parties, pursuant to Rules 295(d) and 296.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
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 Inventronics GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbHvsMammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonvsASUSTEK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Apple Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerning Ericsson's appeals against orders of the Milan Local Division that had rejected an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, finding that Apple had demonstrated a legal interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Ericsson and Apple. The Court granted Apple the right to file a Statement in intervention, respond at the oral hearing, and participate in support of Ericsson's position, while rejecting Apple's separate applications to file further submissions.
Fingon LLCvsSamsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 839 403 before the Mannheim Local Division. The Defendants objected to the Claimant's reply, arguing it introduced new Trusted Applications and Samsung Galaxy S25 models without seeking leave to amend the case under R. 263 RoP. The Court held that the reply did not constitute an amendment of the case as it merely provided further illustrative examples of the attacked embodiment, and dismissed the Defendants' requests while postponing the decision on exclusion of impugned submissions until after the oral hearing.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsXiaomi Inc. et al. and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed patent infringement actions against Xiaomi and OPPO entities before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 024 163. After an out-of-court settlement at the end of 2024, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The rapporteur granted only 40%, and Panasonic sought review under Rule 333 EPGVerfO. The panel confirmed the 40% reimbursement, finding the case an extraordinary one under Rule 370.9(e) due to its exceptional complexity and the court's above-average workload.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.vsexpert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, which relates to a light emitting diode. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, information disclosure, destruction of infringing products, and damages, while declining to require security from the plaintiff.
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.