Pending
at Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
13 pending decisions from Munich (DE) Central Division - Section.
Pending Decisions
13 cases | Page 1 of 1
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This UPC decision was a procedural order in the revocation action concerning EP2794928. The court addressed several key issues during an interim conference, including admitting crucial prior art (D46) and setting the financial parameters of the dispute. By confirming the hearing date and establishing the value of the proceedings at EUR 7.5 million, the Court moved the case closer to a substantive judgment.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This UPC decision is a procedural order in a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies against Harvard College concerning EP2794928. The court reinforced the strict 'front-loaded' nature of UPC proceedings, setting clear boundaries for amendments and late submissions. Key decisions included admitting new prior art (D46) into the case and formally establishing the financial value of the dispute at EUR 7.5 million for cost assessment. This order moves the case closer to trial while maintaining strict procedural discipline.
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.