Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
32 cases · page 1 of 2
Showing 1–29REEL International v.Fives ECL
In this UPC revocation action, REEL International challenged EP 1 740 740 held by Fives ECL. Fives ECL attempted to dismiss the case based on lack of standing and res judicata stemming from national German court decisions. The Central Division rejected these preliminary objections, confirming that such defenses do not preclude the UPC's jurisdiction. This decision ensures the substantive merits of the patent revocation claim will be heard.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
In a significant revocation action, UPM-Kymmene Oyj successfully challenged European patent EP 2 611 800 against International N&H Denmark ApS. The UPC Central Division ruled that the patent was invalid and revoked it entirely across all participating member states. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of subject matter scope under the UPC Agreement, particularly concerning claims that may extend beyond the original application's content.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
In a significant revocation action, TCL EUROPE SAS challenged the validity of EP 3 296 274, which relates to fining boroalumino silicate glasses used in flat panel displays. The UPC Central Division dismissed the revocation request, upholding the patent's validity. The court ruled that the claims were sufficiently disclosed and did not suffer from lack of novelty or inventive step, thereby reinforcing the strict requirements for challenging granted patents within the UPC framework.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
This UPC decision is an interim order setting the procedural roadmap for a revocation action brought by TCL EUROPE SAS against Corning Incorporated concerning EP 3 296 274. The court confirmed the case value and scheduled an oral hearing for February 3, 2026. Both parties are now focused on preparing detailed submissions addressing inventive step and sufficiency in light of recent Court of Appeal precedents.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
UPM-Kymmene Oyj initiated a revocation action against International N&H Denmark concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The Court of First Instance held an interim conference to manage the proceedings. Key procedural decisions were made, including setting the case value and confirming the date for the full oral hearing in January 2026.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a revocation action concerning a patent for specialized lignocellulosic fasteners. The court delivered key legal principles regarding inventive step, stressing that assessments must not be made retrospectively based on post-grant knowledge. Crucially, the ruling established that if the claimant voluntarily limits its attack scope (by not challenging certain claims), this limitation is binding on both the defendant and the court. Consequently, the patent was partially revoked in the specified member states.
WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna v.Vilpe Oy
This UPC decision is an interim order from the Central Division in a revocation action concerning EP 2 649 380. The court confirmed the oral hearing date for December 3, 2025, and addressed several procedural matters. Notably, the claimant was ordered to provide translations of specific prior art documents (D2 and D4), while the defendant was allowed to re-order its auxiliary requests.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
In this procedural matter, TCL EUROPE SAS sought a two-week extension to respond to the Defence to Revocation and Application to Amend filed by Corning Incorporated in relation to EP 3 296 274. The Claimant argued that extensive technical testing related to prior art attacks necessitated more time. However, the UPC Court rejected the request, emphasizing that while complexity exists, the RoP provides sufficient time for patent cases, and the burden of proving 'special circumstances' justifying an extension rests heavily on the requesting party.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
This procedural order addressed a request by UPM-Kymmene Oyj to extend the written phase of a revocation action against International N&H Denmark ApS. The Claimant sought permission for further pleadings, arguing that new arguments made by the Defendant required a response. However, the Court rejected this request, ruling that the Claimant had not demonstrated any jeopardy to its procedural rights and that all relevant issues could be addressed at the scheduled oral hearing.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This UPC Central Division order addresses a revocation action brought by BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH against Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH concerning EP 4 019 790. The court established the procedural framework, setting the value in dispute and confirming the schedule for the oral hearing. While no substantive ruling was made, this order confirms the parties' readiness to proceed with the revocation proceedings.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH initiated revocation proceedings against EP 4 019 790, arguing that the patent lacks novelty and inventive step. Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH defended the patent while simultaneously filing counterclaims seeking to maintain or amend the patent claims. The UPC Central Board has issued a procedural order scheduling an interim hearing to clarify the scope of the dispute, assess its value, and discuss potential settlements.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
In a procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed applications concerning the revocation of EP 3 296 274. The Claimant sought to introduce new arguments and reports late in the proceedings, while the Defendant requested an extension for its Defence. After discussions with both parties, the Court agreed to admit the new pleadings and grant a two-week extension. This decision underscores the importance of party cooperation in managing procedural timelines within the UPC framework.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This UPC procedural order in the case of BAUSSMANN v. Raimund Beck Nageltechnik concerns a revocation action against EP 4 019 790. The court has set strict deadlines for both parties to submit their respective pleadings regarding the patent's validity and potential amendments. While no substantive decision was made, this order highlights the procedural rigor of UPC proceedings when dealing with complex issues like amending patents during litigation.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 767 151, the UPC granted a stay of proceedings at the joint request of Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. and Häfele SE & Co. KG. This decision allows both parties to concentrate on ongoing settlement negotiations without the immediate pressure of an oral hearing. The ruling highlights the Court's flexibility in managing litigation when parties seek amicable resolution.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This UPC case involves a revocation action brought by Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. against Häfele SE & Co. KG concerning European patent EP 3 767 151. The claimant argues the patent lacks novelty, inventive step, and clarity. While the substantive merits are still pending before the oral hearing on June 4, 2025, the court issued a critical case management order. Notably, the judge-rapporteur rejected the defendant's extensive proposal of 80 auxiliary claims as unreasonable in number, streamlining the path forward for the litigation.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge in a revocation action concerning EP 2 611 800. The original defendant, Virdia Inc., sought substitution by International N&H Denmark ApS because the latter was the true proprietor under Member State law, despite Virdia Inc. being the registered proprietor. The Court accepted this application, confirming that revocation actions must target the actual patent owner. This ruling clarifies the interplay between the 'registered proprietor' and the 'Rule 8.5 proprietor' within UPC proceedings, ensuring that litigation is properly directed against the party with enforceable rights.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This order addressed a request by Berggren Oy, acting as a UPC representative firm, to access the full documentation of a concluded Revocation action (UPC 252/2023). The Court affirmed that once proceedings have ended, there is a general public interest in transparency and scrutiny. Consequently, the Court granted access to all written pleadings and evidence, subject only to standard redactions of personal data.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In this UPC decision concerning a revocation action, the Court addressed a request by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited to release a security deposit imposed for legal costs. Despite arguing that its financial situation had improved through acquisition by Bruker Corporation and the reversal of an injunction, the Claimant's request was rejected. The court held that as long as the initial decision is subject to appeal, the Defendant's interest in protecting potential cost recovery remains valid, regardless of the Claimant's corporate structure or solvency claims.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This UPC decision addressed an application for access to confidential documents within a revocation action (UPC 75/2023). The Applicant, Mathys & Squire LLP, sought unredacted versions of pleadings related to the Claimant's product valuation. The Court ruled in favor of the Applicant, finding that the Claimant failed to provide legitimate reasons to maintain confidentiality regarding the specific information. This decision reinforces the principle that public access is the default unless a party can clearly demonstrate a compelling need for secrecy.
Dehns v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
This UPC Order addressed a request by Dehns, a representative firm, seeking access to all documents in an ongoing revocation action (Sanofi-Aventis v Amgen). The Court clarified the scope of Rule 262.1(b) RoP, distinguishing between 'written pleadings and evidence' and other administrative or formal documents. While granting Dehns access to the core case materials, the Court rejected requests for non-substantive documentation, setting a clear boundary on public transparency rights in UPC proceedings.
Dehns v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This UPC Order addressed a request by Dehns (a representative firm) to access documents from concluded revocation and counterclaim proceedings involving Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Amgen, Inc. The Court confirmed that while the general principle favors public access after a decision is rendered, the scope of access must strictly adhere to 'written pleadings and evidence' as defined in Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Consequently, Dehns was granted access to relevant core documents but was denied access to administrative or formal procedural documents.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. v.Amgen, Inc.
This UPC Order addressed a request by Dehns, an external representative firm, seeking access to all written pleadings and evidence in the Sanofi v Amgen revocation action. The Court affirmed that there is a general public interest in transparency, allowing practitioners to better understand how the court reached its decision. While granting access to substantive documents, the Court strictly limited the scope of disclosure only to 'written pleadings and evidence,' rejecting requests for administrative or formal documentation.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In a significant revocation action, the UPC Central Division completely revoked EP 2 794 928 B1, which covers methods for detecting analytes. The court determined that the patent lacked novelty over existing prior art (Göransson). This decision aligns with previous findings from both national courts and the Court of Appeal in related cases. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to rigorous examination of patent validity and strict adherence to procedural deadlines.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This UPC Order addressed a request for public access to documents in a revocation action, following the parties' settlement. The Court ruled that once proceedings conclude by agreement, the general interest in transparency outweighs concerns about procedural integrity. Access was granted to the written pleadings and evidence, but only after strict redactions were applied to protect confidential commercial information and personal data.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In a procedural ruling, NanoString Technologies Europe Limited successfully opposed President and Fellows of Harvard College's attempt to introduce late-stage written submissions and expert reports in a revocation action concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court upheld the principle of 'front-loaded character' inherent in UPC proceedings. This decision reinforces the requirement for parties to present their full case early, preventing procedural delays and ensuring efficient judicial process.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This UPC decision addresses procedural applications in two revocation actions concerning patents EP3056563 and EP3056564. Both the Claimant, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and the Defendants confirmed that they had reached a settlement. The Court accepted their request to dispose of the cases under Rule 360 RoP, confirming that settlement allows for case disposal without mandatory judicial confirmation. The ruling reinforces the principle of party disposition in UPC proceedings, allowing parties flexibility in concluding actions outside formal judgment. Furthermore, the court granted the Claimant a reimbursement of court fees, underscoring the procedural encouragement for early settlements.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
In a significant UPC decision, the Central Division revoked European Patent 3 666 797 B1, which covers PCSK9 inhibitors used for cholesterol reduction. The case involved Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Amgen Inc., both major players in the biotech drug market. While the patent was successfully challenged and revoked, the court also ruled on costs, awarding a substantial sum to the successful Claimant (Regeneron). This ruling underscores the high stakes of UPC revocation actions in the competitive pharmaceutical landscape.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
In a significant decision, the UPC Central Division revoked European Patent EP 3 666 797 B1, which covers PCSK9 inhibitors used in cholesterol-lowering treatments. The case involved Sanofi-Aventis and Amgen, two major players in the biotech drug market. The revocation was based on patentability grounds, specifically concerning inventive step and claim interpretation. This ruling underscores the rigorous standards applied by the UPC when assessing complex biotechnological inventions.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This interim order in the revocation action concerning EP3056563 sets crucial procedural groundwork. The Court admitted a key declaration (D18) while imposing strict reply conditions on the Defendants. Additionally, the parties agreed upon the value of the dispute at EUR 4 million for cost assessment purposes. This decision moves the case closer to the oral hearing scheduled for June 2024.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Osaka University
This interim order in a revocation action concerning EP3056564 involved ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE against Healios K.K and Osaka University. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date for June 26, 2024, while also making key procedural decisions. Notably, the court admitted new evidence (D21) and formally set the value of the dispute at EUR 4 million for cost calculation purposes. This order demonstrates the UPC's active management of complex biotech revocation cases.
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.