322 cases · page 2 of 11
Showing 31–59Network 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.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
This decision of the Local Division Munich concerns an infringement action filed by BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG, with the defendant filing a counterclaim for revocation under a condition subsequent. The court addressed three key procedural and substantive issues: (1) the weight of applicant statements made during grant proceedings for claim interpretation, (2) whether basing an infringement allegation on the defendant's own description of the attacked product constitutes a claim amendment, and (3) the procedural admissibility of a conditional counterclaim for revocation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. a. o.
This procedural order concerns a dispute over access to case files (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) in proceedings involving European Patent EP 4 142 215. The Rapporteur had previously granted the applicant's request for file inspection on January 27, 2026, prompting Respondent Huawei to seek Panel Review under Rule 333.1 RoP and a suspension of the order's effects. The Rapporteur issued this order addressing whether, under Rule 335 RoP, he should suspend his own order pending the Panel Review to prevent the review from becoming moot.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-02-24) under reference UPC-000065, UERAN Technology LLC appeared in dispute with Xiaomi Corporation a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Nordmeccanica S.p.A. v.Bobst Manchester Limited
This order concerns a procedural application by the Defendant, Nordmeccanica S.p.A., to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Bobst Manchester Limited based on European patent EP3067437. The Defendant argued that neither party has a business connection with Germany, that English is the prominent language in the relevant technical field, and that the change would promote procedural economy. The Claimant did not submit additional comments on the merits of the application.
Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc. v.Nagravision Sàrl,
Nagravision Sàrl filed an infringement action against Pinterest entities based on EP 3965466. The Pinterest defendants applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance considered the domiciliation of the parties and the need for efficient coordination among multiple defendants. The order addressed the application for language change and the question of whether existing pleadings and documents should be translated.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case concerns an application by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG for re-establishment of rights (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) after missing the deadline to file a cost determination application under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involved European Patent No. 3 215 288, where the Local Chamber Munich had previously issued a decision on October 10, 2025, splitting costs 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the defendant. The court granted the application for re-establishment of rights, finding that despite the general rule that lack of legal knowledge does not suffice as grounds for re-establishment, the applicant could not be held responsible for the legal error in this specific case configuration.
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 a.o.
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.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.Reddy Pharma SAS a.o.
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.
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. a.o.
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.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes on key legal principles relating to claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The judgment establishes guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the standard for sufficiency including functional features, and the methodology for assessing inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles regarding the interpretation of dependent claims, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the sufficiency test for functionally defined claims, and the framework for assessing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes establishing legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The full case facts and parties are not contained in the provided text excerpt, which consists primarily of the headnotes section.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The Court of Appeal articulated legal principles governing how dependent claims inform the interpretation of main claims, the inherent requirements of medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the standard for sufficiency of disclosure including functional features, and the methodology for assessing inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The judgment sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The decision establishes guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter, the test for sufficiency including functional features, and the framework for evaluating inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes addressing key patent law principles including claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The judgment establishes legal guidelines on how dependent claims inform main claim interpretation, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the legal nature of added matter assessment, and the standards for sufficiency and inventive step analysis.
TP-Link Systems Inc, TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Entreprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V, TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd., v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This order concerns 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 European patent EP 3678321. The Defendants argued that English, the language in which the patent was granted, should be used as the language of proceedings for reasons of fairness, citing the strict time constraints of the UPC rules of procedure, the internal working language of the parties, and the need for rapid coordination among the multiple Defendants. Huawei opposed the application and requested its dismissal. The matter was referred to the President of the Court of First Instance under Rule 323 RoP, with the panel of the Local Division Munich consulted.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co. a.o.
1. One of the circumstances relevant to admission to a confidentiality club is whether the individual is an employee of the party, an employee of the party’s economic unit or an employee of a third party. 2. If it is possible for a person who is not an employee of the party to join a confidentiality club, it is – depending on the relevant circumstances of the case – in any case justified for employees of the party or its economic unit to be admitted to a confidentiality club. UPC_CFI_7
Skechers USA Deutschland GmbH, Skechers S.a.r.l, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers EDC SPRL, Skechers USA Italia Srl, Skechers USA France SAS v.FAST IP, LLC
FAST IP LLC brought an infringement action against multiple Skechers group entities based on European patent EP4003084 concerning rapid-entry footwear. The Defendants applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of the proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The Claimant opposed the application. The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order addressing the application to change the language of the proceedings.
BF exaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation a. o.
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 a.o.
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 interim injunctive relief against Niche Biomedical, Inc. (doing business as ANEUVO) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, directed to a system for neuromodulation. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the legal principle that auxiliary requests seeking interim measures based on alternative claim formulations deviating from the granted patent version are generally inadmissible in provisional proceedings under Article 62 EPGÜ. The court held that a patent proprietor's request to amend the claim formulation indicates that the patent as granted is likely invalid, undermining the court's ability to assess the validity required for granting interim relief.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH a.o.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation following a 4 April 2025 order requiring the three Meril defendants to jointly and severally bear the costs of the proceedings. Edwards sought reimbursement of EUR 774,696.49 in costs of representation, court fees, travel expenses, and other costs, while Meril contested the necessity and proportionality of various travel-related expenses. The Local Division Munich, through Judge-Rapporteur Dr. Matthias Zigann, held that UPC representatives have broad discretion in determining how to effectively represent their parties, and that the disputed travel costs were marginal relative to the overall costs, warranting award at the judge's discretion.
AX Wireless, LLC v.1) Xiaomi Inc. 2) Xiaomi Corporation 3) Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH 4) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
AX Wireless, LLC filed a patent infringement action against four Xiaomi entities before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3072324. The Defendants requested an extension and alignment of procedural deadlines for all four Defendants so that a consolidated defence could be filed, and the Claimant consented. The Court granted the request, aligning the deadlines for all Defendants.
Brita SE v.1) AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o, 2. AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, 3. Gasmarine BV Srl, 4. MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 16.10.2025 KLÄGERIN UND NICHTIGKEITSWIDERBEKLAGTE Brita SE, gesetzlich vertreten durch den Vorstand Markus Hankammer, Stefan Rudolf Jonitz und Dr. Rüdiger Kraege, Heinz-Hankammer-Straße 1, 652
Motorola Mobility LLC v.1) ASUSTek Computer Inc 2) ASUS Computer GmbH 3) ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 3 972 309, brought an infringement action against ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited before the Local Chamber Munich. The patent concerns a method and apparatus for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting the security keys used in user equipment communicating with two cell groups. The defendants filed a counterclaim. The case was heard orally on July 9, 2025, and the decision was issued on October 10, 2025, by a panel of four judges.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case concerns European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1, relating to metal sintering preparations, which is in force in Germany, France, Italy, and Romania. Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG filed an infringement action against Vibrantz GmbH, while Vibrantz filed a counterclaim for revocation along with applications for patent amendment and a decision on an absolute procedural bar. The Local Chamber Munich addressed the binding effect of a final national revocation judgment under Art. 24.1(e) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, holding that in the absence of specific UPCA regulations, national law governs this question, and also examined private prior use rights in Germany, France, Italy, and Romania.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Teleconmmunications Corp. Ltd. a.o. v.Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z.o.o.
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH Issued on 18/09/2025 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. No. 18 Haibin Road, Wusha, Chang’an Town, Guangdong Provinc
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.