| 2024-10-10 | UPC_APP_55249/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Kosten | Nur prozessual | Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division refusing Aarke AB's request to adjourn the oral hearing in the infringement action by SodaStream Industries Ltd. concerning EP 1 793 917. The defendant sought adjournment pending an outstanding Court of Appeal order on its dismissed security for costs application. The Court found no convincing reasons to adjourn. |
| 2024-09-27 | UPC_APP_53570/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Abgewiesen | Düsseldorf Local Division (27 September 2024) refused Mammut's application for leave to file additional submissions in response to the CoA's order of 25 September 2024, finding that the CoA order did not provide grounds for allowing further submissions in the main proceedings. |
| 2024-09-25 | ORD_53404/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the Magna v. Valeo proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602, addressing the rules on evidence applicable in provisional measures (preliminary injunction) proceedings under R. 9 RoP and R. 210.2 RoP, in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 8 October 2024. |
| 2024-09-20 | UPC_APP_51893/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order on Valeo's R. 262A RoP application for protection of confidential information in the Magna v. Valeo infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602. The court denied Valeo's request for access for a specific additional lawyer (Thierry Lautier) to confidential information, finding no legitimate basis distinguishable from the general representation team. |
| 2024-09-06 | UPC_APP_47922/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 333 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order on panel review under Rule 333 RoP of a prior order concerning security for legal costs requested by defendant Aarke AB against claimant SodaStream Industries Ltd., addressing the applicable standard of proof and factors for ordering security. |
| 2024-08-06 | UPC_APP_44884/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Vergleich | Decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division permitting the withdrawal by Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. of its infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning EP 2 402 415 B1, on the basis of an out-of-court settlement between the parties. The proceedings were declared closed. |
| 2024-08-05 | UPC_APP_41447/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 333 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Düsseldorf Local Division procedural order (judge-rapporteur Thomas) in infringement proceedings by Seoul Viosys / Seoul Semiconductor against expert GmbH entities concerning EP 3 926 698. The order addresses a late application to amend the patent (R. 30.2 RoP), deferring the admissibility decision on the amendment and setting a response deadline for the defendant. No substantive ruling. |
| 2024-08-02 | ORD_40822/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order addressing the scope of applications to amend the patent under R. 30 RoP and R. 263 RoP. The court clarified that amendments to auxiliary requests in an application to amend the patent are subject to R. 30.2 RoP (requiring court permission), and that territorial limitation of an amendment application should only be made if there are objective reasons for it under Art. 34 UPCA. |
| 2024-07-03 | UPC_APP_39459/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Vergleich | Order by Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_133/2024, 3 July 2024) confirming settlement between Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Sibio/Umedwings under R. 365.1(2) RoP in provisional measures proceedings over EP 2 393 417. A 20% reimbursement of court fees was ordered, the settlement having been reached at the oral hearing stage. |
| 2024-06-26 | ORD_37232/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Düsseldorf Local Division (26 June 2024) granted Access Advance LLC's application to join the proceedings as a third-party intervener (Streithelferin) on Dolby's side, holding that Access Advance had a direct legal interest because it managed the FRAND licensing obligations for Dolby's patent pool including the patent in suit, and HP was disputing those FRAND obligations. |
| 2024-06-21 | ORD_36553/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Düsseldorf Local Division early procedural order (R. 37.2 RoP) in Tridonic GmbH & Co KG's infringement action against CUPOWER entities concerning EP 2 011 218 B1 (same case as the later final decision). The court decided to handle both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim jointly (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) before the close of the written proceedings, for reasons of procedural economy and to allow early assignment of a technically qualified judge. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_APP_36031/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order permitting service of the statement of claim upon the Turkish defendant (Altech Makina) at a trade fair stand in Amsterdam under R. 271.5(a) RoP. The court held that a trade fair stand constitutes a temporary business address within UPC contracting member states, where service is permissible. |
| 2024-05-14 | UPC_APP_23193/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Amend Document | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order by Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_457/2023, 14 May 2024) allowing Dolby International AB's unconditional restriction of its infringement claim under R. 263.3 RoP to exclude HP computers equipped with NVIDIA GPU-based HEVC video decoding. The court characterised the restriction as an unconditional and always-permissible limitation of the claim under R. 263.3 RoP (not merely a clarification), and noted that the defendants' intervention invitation application appeared to have become moot. |
| 2024-04-30 | ORD_23580/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | PI erteilt | Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction (30 April 2024) against Curio Bioscience Inc. ordering it to cease offering, marketing, using or possessing arrays for localised detection of nucleic acid in tissue samples in Germany, France, and Sweden that infringe EP 2 697 391. A penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day of contravention was imposed. Enforceability was conditional on the applicant providing a security of EUR 2,000,000. |
| 2024-04-23 | ORD_22211/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | motionName.jurisdictional | Nur prozessual | Düsseldorf Local Division procedural order following the Court of Appeal's reversal of the President's language decision, directing that the language of the proceedings be changed to English before the final order on provisional measures. The order deals with Germany's R. 14.2(c) RoP indication, allowing the judges to issue decisions in German with certified English translations, and enables the provisional measures decision (in the 10x Genomics vs Curio Bioscience matter, EP 2 697 391) to be issued promptly in both languages. |
| 2024-04-15 | ORD_18121/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Local Division Düsseldorf ordered a joint hearing of the main infringement action and the revocation counterclaim, finding that combined treatment was efficient and appropriate given the panel had already considered both infringement and validity issues in the prior provisional measures proceedings. |
| 2024-04-09 | UPC_APP_4074/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Request to review an order ex-parte | motionName.ex_parte | PI erteilt | Düsseldorf Local Division order (judge-rapporteur Thomas) on review of ex parte preliminary injunction in proceedings by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH against Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 (avalanche airbag backpack). The ex parte provisional measures order of 11 December 2023 was upheld following the inter partes review. Mammut was ordered to reimburse Ortovox's costs of EUR 33,375.70; Mammut's own cost claim of EUR 19,858.40 was rejected. Security of EUR 500,000 was maintained. No merits costs order (deferred to main proceedings). |
| 2024-04-04 | UPC_APP_17472/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Düsseldorf Local Division granted FUJIFILM's request for an extension of the time period for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence (including counterclaims for revocation) until 28 May 2024. The extension was justified because a confidentiality order under Rule 262A RoP had initially restricted FUJIFILM's employees from accessing the defendants' submissions, and the full two-month period for the reply must be available after employee access is granted. |
| 2024-03-27 | UPC_APP_6761/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Procedural Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality order setting out principles for protection of confidential information under R.262A RoP, including the test for substantiating the confidential nature of information and the balancing of access rights against confidentiality interests. |
| 2024-03-22 | UPC_APP_14943/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Procedural Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the request for simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing from German to English, holding that interpretation is only available to the extent necessary to support a party in proceedings conducted in the language of the local division. |
| 2024-01-20 | UPC_APP_2249/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in Seoul Viosys v. expert e-Commerce, rejecting the defendants' application for an extension of the deadline to file their statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation, applying the strict UPC time limits regime. |
| 2024-01-19 | UPC_APP_1714/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in Dolby v. HP entities, rejecting the defendants' application for an extension of the deadline to file their statement of defence, citing the strict time limits regime under the UPC Rules of Procedure and the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying an extension over the claimant's objection. |