Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
46 cases · page 1 of 2
Showing 1–29REEL International v.Fives ECL
REEL International filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 1 740 740 owned by Fives ECL before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Unified Patent Court. Fives ECL raised a preliminary objection seeking to have the court decline jurisdiction based on REEL International's alleged lack of standing (intérêt à agir) and the res judicata effect of German court decisions on the German part of the patent. The judge-rapporteur rejected the preliminary objection, holding that lack of standing and res judicata are not among the exhaustive list of preliminary objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to invalidate Corning Incorporated's European Patent EP 3 296 274 B1, titled 'Fining of Boroalumino Silicate Glasses,' on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter. The Court dismissed the revocation action in its entirety, finding that the patent's subject matter did not extend beyond the application as filed, was sufficiently disclosed, was novel, and involved an inventive step. TCL, as the unsuccessful party, was ordered to bear Corning's legal costs.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
UPM-Kymmene Oyj filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 611 800, owned by International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.), concerning methods and systems for processing sugar mixtures and resultant compositions. The Claimant argued the patent was invalid due to added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the subject matter extended beyond the content of the earlier application as filed and that the claimed compositions lacked an inventive step.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated on 22 April 2025 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. Following an interim conference held on 28 November 2025, the Judge-rapporteur issued an order on 1 December 2025 setting out procedural directions, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the case, and the date for the oral hearing.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
This is a procedural order from the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court in a revocation action (UPC 829/2024) brought by UPM-Kymmene Oyj against International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The order, issued by Judge-rapporteur András Kupecz following an interim conference on 21 November 2025, sets the value of the case at EUR 1,000,000, grants the Defendant time to clarify its requests, and confirms the date of the oral hearing for 15 January 2026 in Munich.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
Revocation action concerning EP 4 019 790 B1, which relates to a nail for use in a nail gun made predominantly of lignocellulosic material. The claimant attacked claims 1-4 and 7-13 of the patent as granted for lack of novelty and inventive step, while leaving claims 5 and 6 unchallenged. The Court of First Instance partially revoked the patent, maintaining it only in the form of Auxiliary Request III with claims 5 and 6 unchanged as granted, and ordered costs to be borne 70% by the defendant and 30% by the claimant.
WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna v.Vilpe Oy
Revocation action brought by WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (Poland) against Vilpe Oy (Finland) concerning European patent EP 2 649 380 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. Following an interim conference held on 9 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur issued procedural orders regarding the timeliness of submissions, translation requirements for evidence documents, reordering of auxiliary requests, and the admission of a warning letter into the proceedings. The oral hearing was confirmed for 3 December 2025 in Munich, with the value of the case set at EUR 630,000.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated concerning European Patent EP 3 296 274 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. TCL sought a two-week extension of the deadline to file its reply to the Defence to Revocation and defence to the Application to amend, citing ongoing technical testing for prior art attacks. The Court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant had not demonstrated special circumstances justifying deviation from the standard two-month time period provided in the Rules of Procedure.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS (formerly Virdia Inc.)
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to file further written pleadings in response to the Defendant's Rejoinder. The Judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding it admissible but not well-founded, as the Claimant failed to demonstrate that due process principles required an additional round of written pleadings.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Munich section) in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. Following an interim hearing held on July 11, 2025, the presiding judge made several procedural determinations, including setting the value in dispute at EUR 500,000, reserving the admissibility decision on a specific exhibit for the oral hearing, and scheduling the oral hearing for October 16, 2025.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Munich) on June 27, 2025, in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. The plaintiff seeks revocation of claims 1-4 and 7-13 for lack of novelty and inventive step, while the defendant defends the patent as amended under a main request and eleven auxiliary requests. The court scheduled an interim hearing for July 11, 2025, to address procedural matters including the value of the dispute, settlement possibilities, and the scope of the nullity attacks.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. The Claimant (TCL Europe SAS) sought to introduce new added matter arguments and a Swedish Consulting Report into the proceedings, while the Defendant (Corning Incorporated) requested a four-week extension to file its Defence to Revocation. Following a video conference with the parties, the Court accepted their agreement to admit the new pleadings and extend the deadline by two weeks.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Munich) in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. The order directs the parties to upload their pleadings in the 'Application for amendment of a patent' workflow in the case management system by June 4, 2025, to allow the claimant to file a rejoinder. The court reserved the question of whether a separate application and workflow are required for patent amendments for the interim proceedings or oral hearing.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 767 151 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Section Munich). The parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings to concentrate on finalising ongoing settlement negotiations. The Judge-rapporteur agreed to stay the proceedings under Rule 295(d) RoP, cancelling the oral hearing originally scheduled for 4 June 2025.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 767 151. The Claimant seeks full revocation on grounds of lack of novelty/inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter, while the Defendant seeks dismissal and alternatively proposes 40 auxiliary requests (in two alternative forms, totaling 80) to maintain the patent in amended form. In this Case Management Order, the Judge-rapporteur found the number of auxiliary requests unreasonable and directed the Defendant to limit and/or re-order them, while also addressing case valuation, costs, and offering to facilitate a settlement discussion.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.Virdia Inc.
This is a revocation action before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The originally-named defendant, Virdia Inc., applied to substitute itself with International N&H Denmark ApS, to whom the patent had been assigned in 2024. The claimant agreed to the substitution, and the court granted the application, ordering that International N&H Denmark ApS replace Virdia Inc. as defendant and be bound by the proceedings as constituted.
Berggren Oy v.Ex Parte
Berggren Oy, a firm of UPC representatives based in Helsinki, filed a request under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure seeking access to all written pleadings and evidence from a completed revocation action (UPC 252/2023) between NanoString Technologies Europe Limited and President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning European patent EP2794928. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Section Munich), granted the request, finding it both admissible and allowable. Access was ordered subject to the redaction of personal data within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 794 928 B1, the Claimant (NanoString Technologies Europe Limited) sought release of a EUR 300,000 security for legal costs previously ordered under Rule 158 RoP. The Claimant argued it was now solvent following its acquisition by Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and that the first instance decision in its favor (patent revoked) eliminated any potential cost liability. The Court rejected the request, holding that the Claimant failed to provide information about its own independent financial position and that the first instance decision was not final as it remained subject to appeal.
Mathys & Squire LLP (Application under Rule 262.3 RoP in UPC_CFI_75/2023) v.Ex Parte
Mathys & Squire LLP, an intellectual property law firm, applied under Rule 262.3 of the Rules of Procedure for access to unredacted versions of written pleadings in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_75/2023) concerning EP3056563, where certain information had been kept confidential at the request of the Claimant, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The Applicant argued that the redacted information was not genuinely confidential as it was either already publicly available or merely a summary of submissions already provided. The Court of First Instance (Central Division, Munich) found the application admissible and well-founded, holding that the Claimant had failed to contest the Applicant's assertions in a substantiated manner, and granted access to the unredacted documents.
Dehns (Application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in Sanofi-Aventis v.Amgen revocation proceedings)
Dehns, a law firm representing clients before the Unified Patent Court, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to all written pleadings and evidence from a concluded revocation action between Sanofi-Aventis entities and Amgen concerning European patent EP 3 666 797. The Judge-rapporteur granted access to the written pleadings and evidence (subject to redaction of personal data) but rejected the request for other procedural documents that did not qualify as written pleadings or evidence.
Dehns (Application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.)
Dehns, a firm of UPC representatives, applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence lodged in revocation and counterclaim for revocation proceedings between Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Amgen, Inc. concerning European patent EP 3 666 797. The Court of First Instance granted access to the written pleadings and evidence, applying the general principles established by the Court of Appeal in Ocado/Autostore, but rejected the request for other documents that did not qualify as written pleadings or evidence.
Dehns (Application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in Sanofi-Aventis v.Amgen revocation proceedings)
Dehns, a firm of UPC representatives, applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence lodged in a revocation action between Sanofi-Aventis entities and Amgen concerning European patent EP 3 666 797, which had been decided on 16 July 2024. The Court of First Instance (Central Division, Munich) granted access to the written pleadings and evidence after redaction of personal data, but rejected the request in respect of other listed documents (such as administrative letters, formal checks, and proof of payment) that did not qualify as written pleadings or evidence within the meaning of Rule 262.1(b).
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking revocation of European Patent EP 2 794 928 B1 owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, relating to compositions and methods for detecting analytes. The court rejected the defendant's preliminary objection on lis pendens related to a parallel German revocation action and refused permission for a subsequent application to amend the patent. The Central Division held that the main request lacked novelty over the prior art document Göransson, and that the auxiliary requests lacked inventive step, revoking the patent in its entirety.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This is an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Munich Section) concerning a request by Mathys & Squire LLP under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from a concluded revocation action (ACT_464985/2023) between Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine (Claimant) and Healios K.K, Riken, and Osaka University (Defendants) regarding EP3056563. The main proceedings had been disposed of by way of settlement. The Court granted access to the written pleadings and evidence, subject to redaction of personal data and confidentiality of certain commercially sensitive information relating to the Claimant's product pipeline timeline, and granted leave to appeal.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning EP 2 794 928 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant (Harvard) sought to introduce further written submissions and two expert reports shortly before the oral hearing, prompted by the German Federal Patent Court's revocation of the German part of the patent. The Judge-rapporteur dismissed the request, holding that it violated the front-loaded character of UPC proceedings and would unfairly prejudice the Claimant.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, and Osaka University
Two revocation actions brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine against proprietors of European Patents EP 3 056 563 and EP 3 056 564 were disposed of by the Central Division (Section Munich) after the parties reached a settlement. The Court held that parties may conclude their action by way of settlement without seeking a confirmatory Court decision under Rule 365 RoP, and disposed of the actions under Rule 360 RoP as they had become devoid of purpose. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees in each action, ruling that Rule 370.9(c) RoP is not limited to Court-confirmed settlements.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.
This case concerns a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 666 797 B1, owned by Amgen, relating to monoclonal antibodies binding to PCSK9 for treating hypercholesterolemia. The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (Munich Section) revoked the patent entirely for lack of inventive step under Article 138(1)(a) EPC in conjunction with Article 56 EPC, finding that neither the main request nor any auxiliary requests submitted by Amgen were valid. Amgen was ordered to bear Regeneron's legal costs in the amount of 1.375 million euro.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe v.Amgen, Inc.
The Central Division (Munich Section) of the Unified Patent Court revoked European Patent EP 3 666 797 B1 entirely for lack of inventive step. The patent, owned by Amgen, related to antigen binding proteins (antibodies) to PCSK9 for treating hypercholesterolemia. The court found that neither the main request nor any of the auxiliary requests submitted by Amgen involved an inventive step over the prior art, and ordered Amgen to bear the Claimants' legal costs.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Osaka University and Healios K.K.
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. EP3056564, owned by Healios K.K and Osaka University, brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. Following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024, the judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order addressing the admissibility of a second declaration (D21), setting the value of the dispute at EUR 4,000,000 for cost ceiling purposes, establishing deadlines for cost-related submissions, and confirming the oral hearing date for 26 June 2024.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This is a procedural order from the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP3056563, owned by Healios K.K, Riken, and Osaka University. Following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024, the judge-rapporteur issued orders regarding the admission of evidence, the value of the dispute, costs submissions, and the confirmation of the oral hearing date.
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.