Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
43 cases · page 2 of 2
Showing 31–42Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe v.Amgen, Inc.
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section). The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addresses issues of claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and inventive step assessment. The judgment establishes key legal principles regarding how the skilled person interprets patent claims, evaluates priority claims, and assesses obviousness based on realistic starting points in the prior art.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Osaka University, 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. The order was issued by the judge-rapporteur following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024 via video conference, addressing procedural matters in preparation for the oral hearing. Key decisions included confirming the parties' maintained requests, addressing the status of parallel EPO opposition proceedings (with defendants declining a stay), and admitting the second declaration (D21) into the proceedings subject to conditions on the defendants' reply.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This case concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. EP3056563, owned by Healios K.K., Riken, and Osaka University, with Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine as the claimant. Following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024 via video conference, the judge-rapporteur issued procedural decisions on the admissibility of evidence and the value of the dispute. The court admitted a second declaration (D18) into the proceedings subject to conditions, and set the value of the dispute at 4,000,000 EUR for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The appellants (NanoString Technologies entities) appealed against an order in proceedings initiated by the respondents (10x Genomics and Harvard College). The order addresses key legal principles including the examination of formal requirements under Rule 206.2 RoP, the interpretation of patent claims under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient degree of certainty required for provisional measures under Rule 211.2 RoP.
Sanofi v.Amgen, Regeneron
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2024-02-24) under reference UPC-001587, Sanofi appeared in dispute with Amgen, Regeneron concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1, filed by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College. Following the close of written pleadings, the judge-rapporteur held an interim conference addressing several procedural matters, including the translation of a prior art document, the admissibility of late-filed prior art (D46), the handling of auxiliary requests, and the value of proceedings. The court admitted D46 into the proceedings after the Defendant withdrew its objection, set the value of proceedings at EUR 7,500,000, and scheduled the oral hearing for 17 April 2024 in Munich.
Mathys & Squire v.Astellas, Healios, Riken, Osaka University
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2023-12-28) under reference UPC-001648, Mathys & Squire appeared in dispute with Astellas, Healios, Riken, Osaka University concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2023-11-20) under reference UPC-001677, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE appeared in dispute with HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2023-11-17) under reference UPC-001678, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE appeared in dispute with HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, RIKEN, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2023-10-11) under reference UPC-001695, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE appeared in dispute with HELIOS K.K, RIKEN, OSAKA UNIVERSITY concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, RIKEN
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2023-10-11) under reference UPC-001694, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE appeared in dispute with HELIOS K.K, RIKEN concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
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.