Litigation Decisions
6 cases | Page 1 of 1
CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG & Telekom Deutschland GmbH
This decision of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a review application filed by CA, Inc. against a confidentiality order issued by the judge-rapporteur on 22 June 2026 in proceedings involving EP 1 955 151. CA challenged the order on the ground that Telekom had only submitted an excerpt (Annex B5) of a larger document in unredacted form, arguing that Rule 262A.3 RoP required disclosure of the entire underlying document. The court rejected the review application, holding that an excerpt can constitute an 'unprocessed document' under Rule 262A.3 RoP and that there is no right to access the entire source document.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for inspection and evidence preservation (Art. 60 UPCA, Rules 192, 199 RoP) filed by Reinhausen GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 284 B1 relating to an on-load tap-changer, against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. The applicant sought to inspect a tap-changer exhibited by the respondent at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. Following an ex parte order on May 20, 2026, the Local Chamber Munich modified the order on July 27, 2026 to refine confidentiality provisions, access to the expert's report, and restrictions on communication with the appointed expert.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 (relating to a selector for an on-load tap-changer), for an inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court had previously issued an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026. In this decision dated July 27, 2026, the court modified the original order regarding confidentiality provisions, access to the expert's report, and restrictions on communication between the applicant and the appointed expert.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 (relating to a selector for an on-load tap-changer), for an inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court had previously issued an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026. Following the respondent's review application and an oral hearing on July 20, 2026, the court modified the confidentiality provisions of the original order, supplemented it based on the parties' joint declarations, and rejected further requests.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 284 B1 relating to an on-load tap-changer (Laststufenschalter), for an inspection and evidence preservation order under Article 60 of the UPC Agreement against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court initially granted an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026, and following an oral hearing on July 20, 2026, issued a modified order on July 27, 2026 adjusting the confidentiality provisions and the mechanism for access to the expert's report.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Thomas Misgaiski, Lea Prehn, Dr. Marie v.Sercomm Corporation, 2) SerComm Deutschland GmbH
ORDER
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.