Munich (DE) Local Division
374 cases · page 1 of 13
Showing 1–29Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 669 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while Qualcomm filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent with effect for France and Germany, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its infringement allegations in a conclusive manner.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 875 683 relating to integrated circuits with data communication networks (Network on Chip technology). The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement claim in a conclusive manner and that its application for production of source code evidence was unfounded.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while the Qualcomm defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present conclusive evidence of infringement and that its application for production of evidence (including source code inspection) was speculative and unsupported.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement action against three Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 552 669, which relates to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects. The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent for France and Germany, dismissed the Claimant's application to amend the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its infringement allegations.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG sued NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 743 812 concerning dynamic assignment of heterogeneous computing resources over application runtime. NVIDIA filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action and, since the patent was found not infringed regardless of validity, did not decide on the counterclaim for revocation. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 875 683 relating to integrated circuits with data communication networks (Network on Chip technology). Qualcomm filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement claim in a conclusive manner and that the application for production of source code evidence was unjustified.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while the Qualcomm defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement allegations in a conclusive manner and that its application for production of source code evidence was speculative and unsupported.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG sued NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH for infringement of European Patent No. EP 3 743 812, which concerns the dynamic assignment of heterogeneous computing resources over application runtime. NVIDIA filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action and, since the patent was found not infringed regardless of validity, did not decide on the counterclaim for revocation. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a request for file inspection (Akteneinsicht) under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in proceedings involving European Patent EP 4 142 215. The Rapporteur had initially granted file inspection, but Respondent Huawei Technologies sought Panel Review under Rule 333 RoP and requested suspension of the order. The Rapporteur then suspended and modified his original order under Rule 335 RoP, holding that file inspection would only be granted after the final conclusion of the Panel Review proceedings to prevent the review from being rendered moot.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation a.o.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Nordmeccanica S.p.A. v.Bobst Manchester Limited
The President of the UPC Court of First Instance granted Nordmeccanica S.p.A.'s application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Bobst Manchester Limited concerning EP 3067437 (titled 'improved vacuum coating method'). The court found that, since both parties (an Italian defendant and an English claimant) had no connection with German, and English was the predominant language in the relevant technology field, the position of the defendant was decisive in the balancing of interests, warranting a change to the language of the patent.
Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc. v.Nagravision Sàrl
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an application under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action. The Pinterest defendants sought the change on grounds of fairness, arguing English was their common working language and the language of the patent. Nagravision opposed, citing its Swiss domicile and Pinterest's German market activity. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the proceedings to be conducted in English without specific translation arrangements.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court granted the claimant's application for re-establishment of rights (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) under Rule 320 of the Rules of Procedure after the claimant missed the deadline for filing a cost determination application under Rule 151. The underlying decision of October 10, 2025 had split costs 60/40 between claimant and defendant and partially revoked European Patent 3 215 288. The court held that while lack of legal knowledge generally does not suffice as grounds for re-establishment, in this specific case the claimant's misjudgment of the legal situation could not be attributed to it despite legal representation. A dissenting opinion by Judge Brinkman argued the application should have been dismissed as inadmissible for lack of legal interest.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. alleged that AorticLab srl's 'FLOWer' embolic protection device infringed European Patent EP 2 129 425, which relates to an embolic protection device with a cylindrical outer structure and conical inner structure for capturing emboli. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the attacked embodiment did not include a pull loop or other graspable structure engageable by a hook as required by claim 1 of the patent. The defendant's conditional counterclaim for invalidity was not decided because it was dependent on a finding of infringement, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the counterclaim.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others
GXD-Bio Corporation, the registered owner of European Patent EP 3 346 403 concerning a method for quantifying gene expression in FFPE breast cancer tissue samples using OAZ1 as an endogenous reference gene, sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for patent infringement relating to the EndoPredict test. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and GXD-Bio sought to amend the patent via three auxiliary claim requests. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent, dismissed the amendment application, and dismissed the infringement action, finding that the EndoPredict test did not infringe because it uses three reference genes (CALM2, OAZ1, and RPL37A) for normalization rather than OAZ1 alone as required by claim 1.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH a.o.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Munich) revoked European Patent EP 3 346 403, which claimed a method for quantifying gene expression in FFPE breast cancer tissue samples using OAZ1 as an endogenous reference gene. The court dismissed the infringement action brought by GXD-Bio Corporation against the Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific concerning the EndoPredict test, finding that the attacked embodiment did not infringe because it normalized expression using three reference genes (CALM2, OAZ1, and RPL37A) rather than OAZ1 alone as required by claim 1.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
This case concerned European Patent 2,493,466, held by Sanofi SA, relating to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer. Sanofi filed infringement actions against STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva entities for marketing generic versions of its JEVTANA product, while the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.STADAPHARM GmbH a.o.
Sanofi and related entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (Stada, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the claimed subject-matter lacked inventive step over prior art describing Phase III clinical trials with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions accordingly.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France and others
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs of both the counterclaims and the infringement proceedings.
Sanofi SA and Others v.STADAPHARM GmbH and Others
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs of both the counterclaims and the infringement proceedings.
Sanofi SA v.STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, and Zentiva France
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court revoked European Patent 2,493,466 in its entirety in consolidated proceedings involving three sets of defendants (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) who had filed counterclaims for revocation against Sanofi's infringement actions. The patent, which relates to the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel (marketed as JEVTANA), was found invalid for lack of inventive step. Consequently, all three infringement actions were dismissed, and Sanofi was ordered to bear the costs of both the revocation counterclaims and the infringement actions.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against three groups of generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, finding that the skilled person would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on prior art describing a Phase III clinical trial with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions.
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
The defendants applied under Rule 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (established in Taiwan), to provide security for costs of the proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 346 616. The Local Division Munich held that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, as neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provides certainty for such enforcement. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within six weeks, but rejected the request for security concerning a counterclaim for revocation that had not yet been filed.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co. et al.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., the registered proprietor of European patent EP 2 787 541 (relating to solar cells), sued Chint New Energy Technology Co. and its Astronergy affiliates for allegedly infringing the patent through their 'ASTRO N' series n-type TOPCon solar modules sold in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation and raised defenses including lack of standing, incomplete infringement allegations, validity challenges, and antitrust violations. The Local Division Munich found infringement, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation in its entirety, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, recall and destruction orders, damages, and an interim award of costs against the defendants.
TP-Link Systems Inc et al. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
The President of the UPC Court of First Instance granted an application by the defendants (TP-Link entities and Lianzhou International) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. concerning EP 3678321. The court found that, considering all relevant circumstances including the defendants' internal working language, strict UPC time constraints, and the need for rapid coordination among multiple defendants, the position of the defendants prevailed over the claimant's interests. The order was issued without requiring specific translation or interpretation arrangements.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd. and Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a review of a confidentiality order before the Local Division Munich regarding EP 2 147 029. The defendants sought to exclude two individuals from the confidentiality club on the grounds that they were not employees of the claimant but of related entities within the Syensqo group. The panel confirmed the confidentiality order, holding that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require membership to be limited to employees of the party and that employees of the party's economic unit may be admitted to the confidentiality club.
Skechers USA Deutschland GmbH & Others v.FAST IP, LLC
The President of the UPC Court of First Instance granted an application by the Skechers defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action concerning EP4003084 (titled "Rapid-entry foot wear having a stabilizer and an elastic element"). The court held that, under Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP, fairness considerations and the position of the defendants weighed in favor of using the language of the patent, particularly given that all defendants belong to the California-based Skechers group with English as their internal working language.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the Defendants' application for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 614 263. The Defendants argued that Claimant ParTec AG faced severe liquidity problems based on press reports, while the Claimants contended they had sufficient assets to cover any adverse costs award. The judge rapporteur ordered Claimant ParTec AG to provide security in the amount of EUR 80,500.00 within six weeks, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Ors.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1. Following settlement negotiations, the Claimant and Defendants 1–4 reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, and Defendant 5 agreed to the withdrawal. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs, and granted the Claimant a 60% reimbursement of court fees (€6,600).
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought provisional measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1 (relating to a neuromodulation system) by Niche Biomedical's 'ExaStim' stimulation system in Germany and France. The court rejected the application for interim measures, along with the auxiliary requests based on alternative claim formulations, holding that such auxiliary requests signal doubts about the validity of the patent as granted and are generally inadmissible in Art. 62 EPGÜ proceedings. The respondent's application for preliminary cost reimbursement of €168,000 was also rejected for lack of substantiation.
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.