Munich (DE) Local Division
325 cases · page 10 of 11
Showing 271–299NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o
In this preliminary procedural order, the UPC Court addressed an issue of service of process in a patent infringement case brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities. The core dispute revolved around proving that Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.) had properly received the claim filed under EP 3 057 321. The court ultimately accepted the defendant's own statement as valid proof of service, thereby clearing a procedural hurdle and allowing the main infringement action to proceed.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
In this UPC case, Motorola Mobility LLC sought leave to amend its infringement claim against Ericsson, specifically to include requests for injunctive relief and recall of infringing products. The court ultimately rejected this application, ruling that the Claimant had not acted with sufficient diligence. The decision emphasizes strict procedural adherence in SEP litigation within the UPC, particularly regarding when remedies like injunctions can be introduced.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag et al.
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division in Munich revoked EP 3 797 685 B1 during an infringement action brought by DexCom against Abbott. The patent covered communication systems for analyte monitoring devices, specifically glucose monitors like FreeStyle Libre 2. Because the patent was found to be invalid and subsequently revoked, the Court dismissed all claims of infringement. This case underscores the critical importance of concurrent revocation proceedings in UPC litigation.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Amgen Inc.'s infringement suit against Sanofi and Regeneron regarding EP3666797 (covering Praluent/Alirocumab) was stayed by the UPC Local Division Munich. This stay followed a prior Central Division decision that had revoked the patent in its entirety, which is now subject to appeal. The parties agreed to halt the infringement proceedings until the validity challenge reaches a final resolution.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This UPC decision addresses procedural scheduling in an infringement case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril. The court faced significant logistical challenges due to the unavailability of key defense counsel, who were tied up with other major litigation matters. After balancing efficiency goals against the right to fair representation, the Court set the interim conference for 2024 and scheduled the main oral hearing for 2025.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the claimant (KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH) successfully withdrew its action against the respondent (TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG). The court accepted the withdrawal because both parties had reached an out-of-court settlement and the respondent consented to the claim's termination. Crucially, the court ruled that since the oral proceedings were not yet finalized—due to pending issues like expert reports or EPO appeal outcomes—the claimant was entitled to a partial refund of 20% of the court fees.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
In a case concerning patent infringement related to extrusion technology, KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH successfully withdrew its lawsuit against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG after reaching an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Local Division accepted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings. Crucially, the court ruled that because the litigation was not yet fully concluded—due to pending issues like expert reports and parallel EPO appeal decisions—the claimant was entitled to a partial refund of their court fees.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a procedural dispute regarding the submission of pleadings in an infringement case. The respondents sought extensions for their reply and rejoinder, citing redacted documents from the claimant's initial filing. However, the court rejected these requests, establishing a strict rule that placeholders via redactions are procedurally unacceptable. This ruling emphasizes the importance of full transparency and timely disclosure of all arguments to ensure a fair defense process in UPC litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A VerfO in an infringement case involving OPPO and Panasonic. The court confirmed that the information was indeed confidential but modified the scope of access and rejected the demand for document destruction post-trial. This ruling provides clarity on balancing the need for secrecy with the practical requirements of litigation, particularly regarding permissible access by legal representatives.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
In a significant procedural ruling concerning trade secrets, the UPC Local Court in Munich addressed requests for confidentiality related to litigation documents. The court consolidated and confirmed an order protecting specific information submitted by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi and its affiliates. This decision is crucial for practitioners as it sets clear boundaries on how sensitive business information can be handled during complex cross-border patent disputes.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division addressed complex issues surrounding pleading redactions and deadlines in a multi-faceted infringement and revocation case involving Panasonic and Xiaomi. The court allowed for an exception regarding redacted documents but firmly maintained that the timelines for challenging the patent's validity (revocation) remain separate from the main infringement proceedings. This decision clarifies how procedural hurdles, such as document presentation, interact with substantive legal challenges in the UPC.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this UPC decision concerning EP3024163, the court addressed a request for evidence production and confidentiality. While the main application was dismissed, the court consolidated and finalized the existing provisional confidentiality order. This final ruling sets strict boundaries on who can view confidential information, particularly related to FRAND licensing terms, reinforcing the importance of procedural safeguards in complex patent litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a request for protective measures concerning confidential business information submitted by Tesla entities in relation to an ongoing patent dispute involving Avago Technologies. The court found that specific operational and financial data provided by Tesla—such as average selling prices and internal inventory numbers—were genuinely non-public and required protection under Rule 262A EPG VerfO. This decision is significant for practitioners, reinforcing the UPC's commitment to balancing transparency with the need to protect sensitive trade secrets during litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a request for protective measures concerning confidential business information submitted by Tesla entities. The court found that specific operational and financial data provided by the defendants—such as average selling prices and vehicle allocation details—were genuinely sensitive and not publicly available. This decision reinforces the importance of Rule 262A EPG VerfO, providing a crucial mechanism for parties to safeguard proprietary information during complex patent litigation.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request for confidentiality rather than patent infringement itself. The Court of First Instance granted the defendants' motion to classify specific exhibits (SA-1 and SA-9) as strictly confidential under Rule 262A. This ruling is significant for practitioners, reinforcing the court's commitment to protecting sensitive commercial information during litigation proceedings.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Samsung Electronics to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The claimant, Headwater Research LLC, did not object to the change, and consequently, the President of the Court granted the application. This decision is significant as it establishes a clear path for aligning procedural language with the patent's grant language in UPC cases.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC decision is procedural, concerning a preliminary measures application related to EP2152073. The defendants requested a postponement of the oral hearing due to scheduling conflicts for their counsel. After considering both parties' availability and the Court's proposed dates, the court granted the request, rescheduling the hearing.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion regarding the production of corporate documents in an infringement case involving Avago Technologies and Tesla. The respondents sought internal Board of Directors resolutions to challenge the claimant's legal standing (active legitimation) concerning patent ownership and assignment validity. The court partially granted this request, compelling the claimant to produce specific transfer authorization documents necessary for the respondent to properly defend their position under Rule 190.1.
Unnamed Claimant v.NEC Corporation
This UPC CFI decision addressed procedural disputes in an infringement case involving HEVC standards. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant's failure to upload the correct standard version alongside the Statement of Claim violated Rule 13.2, justifying a request for an extension of their defense deadline. The Court upheld this principle, granting the extension while rejecting other claims by the Claimant regarding deadlines and technical references.
Dyson Technology Ltd. v.SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Ltd. sought interim injunctions against SharkNinja for alleged infringement of EP 2 043 492, a patent covering hand-held vacuum cleaners. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the claims of both parties, meaning no provisional injunction was granted. Beyond the specific outcome, the decision provided important procedural guidance on timing and scope when applying for interim measures in UPC proceedings. This ruling reinforces the need for careful case preparation while acknowledging the practical constraints of summary relief.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, the court addressed a procedural motion concerning deadlines in an infringement action involving patent EP3110072. The defendants requested an extension of the opposition period for certain parties due to logistical and administrative reasons. After considering the arguments, the court granted the request, aligning the opposition deadlines across the involved parties. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines when there is consensus among the litigants.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.
This procedural order in UPC case UPC_CFI_498/2023 highlights the critical importance of technical precision in infringement claims. The plaintiff (NEC Corporation) was found to have submitted an incorrect standard (AVC instead of HEVC) as evidence of alleged patent infringement. Consequently, the court ordered NEC to amend its statement of claim within 10 days to provide the correct documentation and facilitate service on all parties.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by Volkswagen/Audi and Texas Instruments against Network System Technologies' infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The Court largely rejected jurisdictional challenges, allowing the case to proceed. However, it significantly narrowed the scope of alleged infringement, focusing primarily on the TI DRA79x SoC, while deferring complex issues like UK damages to the main proceedings. This ruling signals a careful application of procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG and Audi AG (and Texas Instruments Incorporated/Deutschland GmbH)
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by Volkswagen/Audi and Texas Instruments against Network System Technologies regarding EP 1 552 669 B1. The Court partially dismissed these objections, allowing the infringement action to proceed in the main proceedings. Key issues addressed included jurisdiction (specifically concerning UK claims) and the admissibility of certain claims and damages. This ruling emphasizes the UPC's commitment to case management efficiency when dealing with complex patent litigation.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed multiple objections raised by both parties regarding an infringement action concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The court largely rejected attempts to dismiss the case outright, instead opting for a pragmatic approach based on efficiency. It ruled that while some initial objections were dismissed, the core issues—including validity and damages claims against TI—must be addressed in the main proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC Local Division in Munich addressed multiple objections raised by Volkswagen AG and its affiliates against Network System Technologies LLC regarding patent EP 1 552 669 B1. The Court partially dismissed these objections, allowing the infringement action to proceed despite initial challenges concerning jurisdiction and standing. This decision emphasizes the UPC's commitment to case management efficiency (Art. 41.3 UPCA), deferring complex issues like damages and UK scope until the main proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC decision addresses preliminary objections raised by both the claimant (NST) and defendants (VW/Audi, TI). The Court largely rejected the arguments that the infringement action should be dismissed as manifestly unfounded. While some jurisdictional issues were noted, the ruling prioritized case management efficiency under Art. 41.3 UPCA, ordering the partial dismissal of preliminary objections. This means the core infringement dispute will proceed to the main proceedings.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed multiple objections raised by both claimants (VW/Audi) and respondents (NST). The court largely rejected procedural challenges regarding jurisdiction and admissibility. Crucially, while allowing the infringement action to proceed, the court significantly narrowed the scope of alleged infringement, limiting it only to specific detailed embodiments like the TI DRA79x SoC. This decision sets a clear precedent for how broad claims must be substantiated in UPC proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling concerning the infringement of EP3611989, Huawei sought court orders to introduce and protect a confidential license agreement with Amazon. The Local Chamber confirmed these provisional measures, granting strict secrecy protection for the document. Crucially, the court also allowed the use of this sensitive licensing information in related split proceedings, balancing commercial needs with IP confidentiality.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance partially rejected the extensive preliminary objections filed by the defendants (VW/Audi and TI) against Network System Technologies LLC. While the court found issues regarding jurisdiction related to the patent's opt-out status and standing for certain historical claims, it ultimately allowed the main infringement proceedings to continue. This decision emphasizes the UPC's commitment to case management efficiency, deferring complex issues like damages and validity to the main trial.
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.