3 cases · page 1 of 1
CA, Inc., 1320 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, California 95131 v.Respondent
This case concerns a review request filed by CA, Inc. against a confidentiality order issued by the Rapporteur of the Local Chamber Munich regarding Annex B5 in proceedings involving European Patent EP 1 955 151. CA argued that Rule 262A.3 of the Rules of Procedure was not satisfied because the defendants (Deutsche Telekom AG and Telekom Deutschland GmbH) had only submitted a partial extract of the underlying document, and only that extract was available unredacted. The court rejected the review request, holding that an extract from a larger document can qualify as an 'unprocessed document' under Rule 262A.3, and that the rule does not entitle the affected party to view the entire underlying document. The Rapporteur's order of 22 June 2026 was maintained, and leave to appeal was not granted.
Reinhausen GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. Nic v.Respondent
Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 concerning a selector for an on-load tap-changer, sought an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The applicant alleged that the respondent was exhibiting a potentially infringing on-load tap-changer designated 'DET-24kV' at its booth. The Local Chamber Munich granted the inspection order without prior hearing of the respondent, appointing an expert, an assistant, and court bailiffs to carry out the inspection, seizure of documents, and detailed technical analysis of the exhibited product.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Thomas Misgaiski, Lea Prehn, Dr. Marie v.1) Sercomm Corporation, 2) SerComm Deutschland GmbH
Huawei Technologies filed a patent infringement action against four Sercomm entities (based in Taiwan, Germany, France, and Italy) concerning European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1, which Huawei describes as essential for WiFi6. The plaintiff alleges indirect infringement of claims 1–6 and direct infringement of claims 7–12, and licenses the patent both bilaterally and through the SISVEL pool. Following an early interim hearing held by video conference on July 8, 2026, the presiding judge issued a procedural order scheduling a further interim hearing for April 16, 2027 and an oral hearing for May 5, 2027, while reserving the possibility of separating the proceedings against the differently served defendants.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.