322 cases · page 10 of 11
Showing 271–299Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 024 163 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies for alleged patent infringement. The proceedings were filed before the Local Chamber Munich, with the statement of claim received on 31 July 2023 and served on the various defendants between 8 September and 19 September 2023. The order issued on 4 July 2024 by the presiding judge and rapporteur Matthias Zigann addresses an application for confidentiality/protection of trade secrets (Geheimnisschutz) within the patent infringement proceedings.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for information contained in a written submission filed outside the regular deadline regime on May 24, 2024. The plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited) left the decision to the court's discretion but argued that the information may not be confidential since Tesla's sales prices and vehicle production figures are publicly available. The Local Chamber Munich granted the confidentiality protection, finding it credible that the requested information is not publicly accessible.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent 1 838 002. The defendants (Tesla entities) had filed a written submission outside the regular deadline regime and sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the applicable procedural rules for certain commercially sensitive information contained therein. The court granted the confidentiality protection, finding it credible that the requested information was not publicly accessible, and imposed restrictions on the plaintiff's internal access to the designated information.
Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns a request by the defendants (Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited) for confidential treatment of two exhibits (Confidential Exhibit SA-1 and Confidential Exhibit SA-9) filed in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. The claimant (Syngenta Limited) did not formally object to the confidentiality request and provided a list of employees within its group who would have access to the confidential information. The Presiding Judge granted the application, ordering that the information be treated as strictly confidential and not used or disclosed outside the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH pursuant to Rule 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) Issued on 12/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Samsung Electronics GmbH Am Kronberger Hang 6, 65824
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Respondent
This is a procedural order in preliminary measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 152 073. The defendants requested postponement of the scheduled oral hearing from 11 July 2024 to 12 July 2024 due to a conflicting hearing at the Düsseldorf Regional Court. After the claimant confirmed its availability for 12 July 2024, the court granted the request and rescheduled the hearing.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of corporate documents from the plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited). The defendants sought the disclosure of Board of Directors resolutions of Avago group entities referenced in the power of attorney documents (Annexes K29 and K30), arguing doubts existed regarding the validity of the powers of attorney and the authorization for the transfer of the patent-in-suit. The plaintiff opposed the request, contending that the defendants' concerns had shifted from the admissibility of self-dealing transactions to internal corporate decision-making, and that there were no doubts that such decision-making had occurred.
Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Tech v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163 before the Local Chamber Munich. The defendants include Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., various Xiaomi Technology subsidiaries across Europe, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, and Shamrock Mobile GmbH. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann as rapporteur, addressing preliminary procedural requests in the infringement proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural deadlines for filing Statements of Defense in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant, NEC Corporation, sought to shorten the deadline for Defendants 3), 4), and 6) to May 23, 2024, arguing they belonged to the same group as Defendant 1) and shared a coordinated defense. The Defendants requested an extension to July 8, 2024, citing the Claimant's failure to upload the correct HEVC standard annexes with the Statement of Claim. The Court extended the deadline for Defendants 1), 3), 4), and 6) to July 8, 2024, rejecting the Claimant's requests.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
Dyson Technology Ltd., the registered proprietor of European Patent 2 043 492, sought provisional measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Chamber Munich. The application concerned alleged infringement of the patent-in-suit by the respondents' products in multiple countries. The court addressed issues of undue delay in seeking interim relief, patent claim interpretation, the summary nature of validity examination in interim proceedings, and the ordering of provisional cost reimbursement.
Belkin Limited , Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc v.Respondent
This is a purely administrative procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning the scheduling of hearings. The Reporter scheduled an interim hearing for September 11, 2024, and postponed the previously scheduled oral hearing from July 11, 2024 to October 23, 2024. No substantive legal arguments or claims were addressed in the order.
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns European Patent EP 3 110 072 owned by Headwater Research LLC, which sued five Motorola/Lenovo-related entities for patent infringement. Defendants 3 and 4 (Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH and Digital River Ireland Ltd.) applied to extend their opposition deadline from May 13, 2024 to May 17, 2024 to align with the deadline applicable to Defendants 1 and 2. The defendants argued that aligning the different opposition deadlines would simplify the proper preparation and coordination of their briefs for reasons of procedural economy.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd. Et al.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3883277, which relates to electronic shelf labels for displaying price information in retail environments. The appellant, VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA), challenged a first-instance order from the Local Chamber Munich dated December 20, 2023, in proceedings against multiple Hanshow entities. The key legal principle established was that patent claim features must always be interpreted in the light of the entire claim.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163. The court addressed the defendants' requests to modify a provisional confidentiality order governing the production of documents. The court granted most modifications, including expanding the definition of legal representatives, increasing the number of reliable persons from one to three, removing the return/destruction obligation, adjusting the penalty provision to require culpability, and cleaning up duplicated obligations.
TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH v.Respondent
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_498/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in the main proceedings related to European Patent 3 057 321 delivered on 09/05/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 22/12/2023 TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated
This case concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 B1 (integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions). Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded with respect to certain time periods, embodiments, and damages claims. Texas Instruments sought a declaration that the court lacks international jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation, and alternatively requested splitting off proceedings related to UK territory acts.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This order concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by the Applicants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded, while Texas Instruments challenged the court's jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation. The Local Division in Munich issued the order on 8 May 2024 addressing these preliminary objections and requests pursuant to rules 19 and 361 of the Rules of Procedure.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Huawei Technologies for a production order against itself and a confidentiality order in proceedings alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei claims is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought to introduce into the proceedings a license agreement it concluded with Amazon on March 5, 2024, regarding its Wi-Fi patent portfolio, arguing that court-ordered confidentiality protection was necessary. The defendants, NETGEAR entities, were defending in part on the basis of an antitrust compulsory license (FRAND) defense. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann as rapporteur of the Munich Local Chamber.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This order concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 (integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions). Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded, while Texas Instruments sought a declaration that the court lacks international jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation. The Local Division in Munich issued the order on 8 May 2024 addressing these preliminary objections and rule 361 RoP requests.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities regarding European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei asserts is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. The defendants raised an exhaustion defense, contending that some accused embodiments incorporate Qualcomm chips and that Huawei's August 2020 license agreement with Qualcomm covers its Wi-Fi 6 standard patents. The defendants applied for an order requiring Huawei to produce the Qualcomm license agreement, along with coercive penalties for non-compliance, while Huawei opposed production citing US court restrictions and alternatively sought confidentiality protections.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
This order concerns three applications filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH (as defendants in the main infringement action) requesting that the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), provide security for legal costs pursuant to Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The applicants argued that NST, a US company with its administrative domicile outside the EU, posed a real risk that any cost reimbursement order would be difficult or impossible to enforce, given the complexity of US recognition procedures for foreign judgments. The applications sought security of EUR 200,000 each, or alternatively an amount to be determined by the Court, along with a stay of proceedings or extension of the deadline to respond to the claim.
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 1 552 399 B1 filed applications requesting that the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), provide security for legal costs pursuant to Art. 69.4 UPCA and rule 158 RoP. The applicants argued that NST, a US company with its administrative domicile outside the EU, posed a real risk that any cost reimbursement order would be difficult or impossible to enforce. The applications sought EUR 200,000 each in security, alternatively an amount to be determined by the Court, along with a stay of proceedings or extension of the deadline to respond.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This order concerns three applications by the defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) requesting security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US company. The applicants sought security of EUR 200,000 each under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP, arguing that enforcement of any cost order against NST in the United States would be difficult, lengthy, and expensive due to the state-by-state exequatur requirements. The applications were filed in connection with the main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399 B1 relating to integrated circuits and methods for establishing transactions.
Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding a Rule 9.3 RoP extension request in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 669 828. The defendants requested a three-week extension of the deadline to file their Statement of Defence, citing the recent change of language of proceedings from German to English. The court rejected the extension request, finding that the defendants failed to substantiate why the one-month period between the language change and the filing deadline was insufficient.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 1 838 002, with Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited as the plaintiff alleging patent infringement against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation of the patent. The court addressed the procedural question under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court regarding whether the infringement action and revocation counterclaims should be heard together or separated. Both parties agreed that the action and counterclaims should be heard together before the same panel, and the court ordered that they be jointly heard before the Local Chamber Munich.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation , Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement dispute involving standard-essential patents (SEPs) for 3G and 4G standards. The plaintiff (Panasonic) alleges infringement of its patent, while the defendants (including OPPO) counter that Panasonic's licensing demands during prior negotiations were not FRAND. Both parties requested the court to order production of evidence, including license agreements, to determine what constitutes FRAND terms in this case.
Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany u.a. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE regarding European Patent EP1612910. The defendants requested that certain information in their Rejoinder, particularly projected sales figures for a potential twelve-month enforcement period, be declared confidential trade secrets with access restricted to a maximum of three named reliable persons. The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing the defendants were attempting to delay proceedings. The Local Chamber Hamburg issued a final procedural order addressing the confidentiality and access restrictions under Rule 262A.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315 before the Local Chamber Munich. Following an oral hearing on January 30, 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to confirm the settlement. The defendant consented to the settlement and both parties jointly requested its confirmation, confidentiality of its details, and noted that costs were already settled within the agreement.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This procedural appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned the time limits available to Netgear for filing a Statement of Defense and any counterclaim for revocation after Huawei extended its infringement action to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Local Division Munich had ordered the second patent's claims to be separated from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. During the interim hearing, Netgear conditionally withdrew its requests to set aside the separation order and to reject the claim extension, provided Huawei agreed to a three-month deadline to respond to the claim extension running from the Court of First Instance's order of January 18, 2024.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural requests by the plaintiff Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 646 825. The plaintiff requested that the interim hearing scheduled for March 14, 2024 be held in person rather than by video conference, and that the court provide simultaneous interpretation from German to English. The presiding judge denied both requests, holding that switching from video to in-person requires demonstrated unconditional necessity, and that the plaintiff must resolve the tension created by its own choice of German as the procedural language for an English-granted patent with international parties.
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.