Munich (DE) Local Division
374 cases · page 10 of 13
Showing 271–299NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, and TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The sole issue addressed in this order was whether proper service had been effected on Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.), which is domiciled in China. The Court held that service was validly completed on 11 May 2024, accepting the defendant's own statement as proof of service.
Manfred Sauer GmbH & Manfred Sauer v.Qufora A/S
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a request by the defendants (Applicants) to dispense with translation of German-language exhibits filed in patent infringement proceedings relating to European patent EP 2 911 727. The Court dismissed the request, holding that the panel as a whole lacked sufficient German language skills and that the number, scope, and nature of the eleven exhibits made it disproportionate to waive the translation requirement. The Applicants had already filed machine translations as an auxiliary measure, thereby complying with Rule 7(1) RoP.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
Motorola Mobility LLC filed a patent infringement action against Ericsson entities before the Local Division Munich regarding European Patent EP 3 342 086. Motorola subsequently applied for leave to amend its claims to add requests for injunctive relief, recall, permanent removal, and destruction of infringing embodiments. The Court rejected the application, finding that Motorola could have made the amendment earlier with reasonable diligence, as it had already sought similar injunctive relief in parallel UK proceedings in December 2023.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
Motorola Mobility LLC filed a patent infringement action against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 3 780 758. Motorola subsequently applied for leave to amend its claims to add requests for injunctive relief, recall, permanent removal, and destruction of infringing embodiments. The Court rejected the application, holding that Motorola failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) of the Rules of Procedure.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities alleging that their FreeStyle Libre 2 glucose monitoring system infringed EP 3 797 685 B1, which relates to communication systems between a sensor electronics unit and a display device in an analyte monitoring system. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, and the Munich Local Division found the patent invalid for lacking an inventive step over the prior art (Berman) when supplemented with common general knowledge. The patent was revoked in its entirety, auxiliary requests were dismissed, and all infringement claims were dismissed with costs borne by the claimant.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.
Amgen Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Sanofi and Regeneron entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 3 666 797 and their drug Praluent (Alirocumab). After the Central Division revoked the patent in its entirety on 16 July 2024, both parties agreed to stay the infringement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural scheduling order from the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3669828. The court addressed the defendants' request to postpone the oral hearing due to the unavailability of their representative, Mr. Würtenberger, who was expecting a child and planning parental leave. Balancing the claimant's right to efficient proceedings within one year against the defendants' right to representation of their choice, the court set the oral hearing for a date in 2025 and the interim conference for a date in 2024.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) to extend the deadline for filing their Duplik (reply) in a patent infringement case involving EP 3 024 163. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's Replik (rejoinder) was filed with numerous redactions serving as placeholders for later submissions, preventing them from preparing a complete response. The court held that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' is impermissible, but as an exception, ruled that the Duplik deadline had not yet begun to run.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH regarding EP 3 024 163. The court issued a consolidated confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, protecting information related to prior and ongoing license negotiations and internal business considerations. The court modified the preliminary order, limiting access to confidential information to specified persons and their legal representatives, and set a coercive penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per culpable violation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for its reply, covering information about prior and ongoing licensing negotiations and internal business considerations. The Xiaomi defendants did not contest the need for protection but requested modifications to the provisional order, which the court largely granted in a consolidated final order.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against ten Xiaomi entities. The defendants sought an extension of deadlines for filing their rejoinder and for responding to the nullity counterclaim and patent amendment applications, arguing that the plaintiff's reply still contained redactions. The court partially granted the request, ruling that the deadline for the rejoinder only begins to run upon service of a fully unredacted reply, but rejected the requests to alter or extend the deadlines relating to the nullity counterclaim and patent amendment applications.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement case concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities. The order addresses Panasonic's request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) in connection with its application for an order to produce documents against itself, and the defendants' requests to modify the provisional confidentiality order issued on 09/05/2024.
Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent 1 838 002, in which the defendants (Tesla entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A for group-internal information contained in a late-filed written submission. The court granted the request, finding that while overall Tesla production figures and sales prices are publicly known, the specific numbers and average sales prices underlying the defendants' application were not publicly accessible. The plaintiff was restricted to disclosing the protected information only to specifically named employees, with potential penalties of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A) filed by the defendants (Tesla entities) in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent 1 838 002. The defendants sought protection for confidential business information contained in a late-filed submission, including vehicle numbers, sales prices, and financial calculations. The court granted the confidentiality protection, finding the information was credibly not publicly available, while allowing the plaintiff access through a limited number of named representatives.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns proceedings for preliminary measures related to European Patent EP 2 152 073 before the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance. The defendants (Sumi Agro companies) applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for confidentiality protection of two confidential exhibits (SA-1 and SA-9). The claimant (Syngenta Limited) did not formally object, and the court granted the confidentiality protection as requested, restricting access to specifically named employees.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S., and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. – Application for Change of Language of Proceedings (UPC_CFI_54/2024) v.Ex Parte
This is an order by the President of the Court of First Instance of the UPC Local Division Munich concerning an application by the Samsung defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC based on EP 2391947. The claimant did not object to the change, and the President granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, the language in which the patent was granted.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings for preliminary measures related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. The defendants requested postponement of the oral hearing scheduled for 11 July 2024 due to a scheduling conflict of their representative. The court granted the request and rescheduled the hearing to 12 July 2024 at 8:00 a.m.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Unified Patent Court decision.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
This procedural order concerns a dispute over deadlines for filing the Statement of Defense in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant sought to shorten the deadline for Defendants 3), 4), and 6), while the Defendants requested an extension to July 8, 2024. The Court extended the deadline for all relevant Defendants to July 8, 2024, relying on Court of Appeal jurisprudence regarding non-compliance with Rule 13.2.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Chamber Munich, alleging infringement of European Patent 2 043 492 (relating to hand-held vacuum cleaners) by SharkNinja's Shark Detect Pro models. The court granted the injunction, ordering SharkNinja to cease offering and supplying the infringing models in Germany and France, subject to a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation, while requiring Dyson to initiate main proceedings within 31 calendar days or 20 working days.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Lenovo EMEA DC
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072 owned by Headwater Research LLC. Defendants 3 (Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH) and 4 (Digital River Ireland, Ltd.) applied to extend their opposition deadline to align with that of Defendants 1 and 2. After the claimant consented to the extension, the court granted the request, extending the opposition deadline under Rule 19.1 RoP to 17 May 2024.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd. & Others
Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants (TCL entities) requested that the plaintiff (NEC Corporation) be ordered to submit the HEVC standard version referenced in its statement of claim, as the annex submitted (Annex BP 6) inadvertently contained the predecessor AVC standard instead. The court ordered the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim within 10 days to provide the correct standard version.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The defendants raised issues including invalid opt-out withdrawal, lack of standing, overly broad infringement allegations, and jurisdictional concerns regarding UK damages. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP, partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments seeking dismissal of an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, NST's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) before the Unified Patent Court Local Division in Munich regarding EP 1 552 399 B1, against Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH. The defendants filed preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP and applications under rule 361 RoP, challenging the court's jurisdiction, the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, NST's standing, the scope of allegedly infringing embodiments, and jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding for reasons of case management efficiency.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on preliminary objections and requests filed by the defendants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP and partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, deferring the residual jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG and Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP and partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, deferring the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, Audi AG
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages and claims already pending in US proceedings. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP and partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, deferring the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding for reasons of case management efficiency.
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.