View all cases
- Case details
- Status—ActionProcedural applicationCategoryOther procedural
- Parties
- Claimants
- Tridonic GmbH & Co KGOperating co.
Representatives- Markus B. Bölling-Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte
- Christian Kraeh-Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte
- Alexander Bach-Mitscherlich Patent- und Rechtsanwälte
Respondents- CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., LtdOperating co.
- CUPOWER Europe GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Eva Geschke-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Jan-Caspar Maiers-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Renate Weissesupporting-Patentanwaltskanzlei Weisse
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringElectrical machinery, apparatus, energy
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Apr 9, 2025
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Locked |
| Judge Berenice Thom | Locked |
| Judge Sabine Klepsch | Locked |
| Judge Peter Agergaard | Locked |
At the UPC: Tridonic GmbH & Co KG (4 cases)·CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd (3 cases)
Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patentThis dispute contains 2 other proceedings
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025
Decisions
- 2025-04-09
Summary: Application to correct a decision (R. 353 RoP) in infringement proceedings Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v. CUPOWER entities. The correction request was partially granted: the phrase 'direkt oder indirekt' was struck from claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6 and 7 in the decision of 7 March 2025, as it was an obvious clerical error. The request to add attorney Alexander Bach to the heading of the decision was refused, as the named representatives were correct and there is no obligation to list all attorneys involved at any point.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Correction of obvious errors in decisions (R. 353 RoP)
- Scope of correction vs. amendment of decision
Documents
- B5ED8FA6671BDF97AE92ADD9ED0FF24C_de.pdf2025-04-09DE