An English translation of the ruling is available at http://bombadil.infradead.org/~hch/vmware/Judgment_2016-07-08.pdf http://bombadil.infradead.org/~hch/vmware

An English translation of the ruling is available at http://bombadil.infradead.org/~hch/vmware/Judgment_2016-07-08.pdf http://bombadil.infradead.org/~hch/vmware/Judgment_2016-07-0.... The reasons for dismissal are explained in detail starting at page 16. The judges leads in to them with this statement: "Nonetheless, these questions (on which the legal interest of the parties and their counsel presumably focus) can and must remain unanswered. This is because the very first requirement for conducting an examination, namely that code possibly protected for the Plaintiff as a holder of adapter’s copyright has been used in the Defendant’s product, cannot be established. This is still true even after taking into account the Plaintiff’s subsequently admitted procedural document dated 29.04.2016, in which he (after the deadline had been extended) had a further opportunity to enter a pleading on the reservations in this respect which the court had already expressed at the hearing." So it sounds like the judge communicated that he was concerned about the evidentiary standards and gave Hellwig a chance to respond but still wasn't satisfied.