| 2026-02-25 | UPC_CFI_692/2026 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI erteilt | Düsseldorf Local Division granted provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Yaham Recience Technology for infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1 (LED display module for temporary exhibition stands). The order was issued ex parte during the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, with penalty payments ordered for non-compliance and provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 400,000. |
| 2026-02-12 | UPC_CFI_723/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI erteilt | Düsseldorf Local Division granted provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Angelalign defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 for infringement of EP 4 346 690 B1 (dental aligner technology), with penalty payments of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product or EUR 20,000 per day for continuing infringement, and provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 400,000. The application against defendant 3 (Angelalign Technology Inc., Cayman Islands holding company) was rejected as no actions beyond typical shareholder role were alleged. |
| 2025-12-29 | UPC_CFI_723/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI abgelehnt | The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against Angelalign entities concerning dental aligner patent EP 4 346 690, and addressed a request for leave to appeal the order. |
| 2025-11-06 | UPC_CFI_723/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Düsseldorf Local Division procedural order in Align Technology's application for provisional measures against Angelalign. The order addresses Angelalign's request for security for costs under R. 158.1 RoP based on Align Technology's US domicile and assesses whether enforcement of a cost order would be unduly burdensome. This order was issued before the final provisional measures order of 12 February 2026. |
| 2025-06-10 | UPC_APP_26391/2025 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Aesculap AG's request for simultaneous interpretation at the oral hearing in preliminary injunction proceedings against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH concerning EP 2 892 442 B1, and permitted video conference participation. |
| 2024-09-06 | ACT_18551/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI abgelehnt | Order by Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_166/2024, 6 September 2024) rejecting Novartis AG and Genentech Inc.'s application for provisional measures against Celltrion Inc. for alleged infringement of EP 3 805 248 B1 (biologic/antibody). The application was dismissed on the merits (infringement insufficiently established). Applicants were ordered to pay interim costs of EUR 138,562.80. The court addressed claim interpretation, imminent infringement, non-applicability of stay of proceedings (R. 295 RoP) to PI proceedings, and the costs gap in the absence of main proceedings. |
| 2024-04-30 | ACT_590953/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI erteilt | Same order as ORD_23580/2024 / UPC_CFI_463/2023 (Düsseldorf, 30 April 2024) – duplicate document. 10x Genomics obtained a preliminary injunction against Curio Bioscience restraining sale of infringing spatial transcriptomics arrays (EP 2 697 391) in Germany, France, and Sweden, subject to a EUR 2,000,000 security. |
| 2024-03-11 | UPC_APP_8500/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality protection order under R.262A RoP establishing principles for granting natural persons access to protected information, holding that access cannot be denied solely because a named person works in the relevant technical field. |
| 2024-03-01 | UPC_APP_9978/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience provisional measures proceedings, rejecting 10x Genomics' request for court-ordered simultaneous interpretation at the oral hearing, on grounds that the applicant had itself chosen German as the language of proceedings and had earlier opposed a language change requested by the respondent. |
| 2024-02-23 | UPC_APP_8500/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Published headnotes and keywords document for the 23 February 2024 Düsseldorf Local Division order in Curio Bioscience v. 10x Genomics, setting out the legal principles on trade secret protection under Rule 262A RoP in provisional measures proceedings, including preliminary access restrictions and the right to be heard before a final confidentiality order. |
| 2024-02-23 | UPC_APP_8500/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality protection order under Rule 262A RoP in Curio Bioscience v. 10x Genomics, establishing preliminary access restrictions to allegedly confidential documents and setting out the proportionate circle of persons entitled to access (four legal representatives, two patent attorneys, three client representatives, expandable by two paralegals if needed). |
| 2024-02-23 | UPC_APP_9671/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the applicant's (10x Genomics) request to move the deadline for responding to the opposition, holding that the deadline runs from the issuance of the prior procedural order and cannot be shifted to the conclusion of the confidentiality proceedings. |
| 2024-02-23 | UPC_APP_9671/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the applicant's (10x Genomics) request to move the deadline for responding to the opposition, holding that the deadline runs from the issuance of the prior procedural order and cannot be shifted to the conclusion of the confidentiality proceedings. |