Munich (DE) Local Division
325 cases · page 2 of 11
Showing 31–59Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH a.o.
In this cost decision case, the UPC Local Division Munich ruled in favor of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH and its affiliates. The court awarded a substantial sum of EUR 771,649.56 to cover Edwards' legal costs incurred during the proceedings related to EP patent 3669828. The ruling emphasized that given the overall complexity of the case, the judge-rapporteur has broad discretion and may award costs even if specific disputed elements (like travel details) are marginal.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
In this procedural case, the UPC Local Division allowed Brita SE to withdraw its counterclaim for revocation against EP 2 387 547. Although a decision on the revocation claim had previously been rendered by the Panel, the court ruled that withdrawal was permissible because no final judgment existed and the appeal period remained open. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust their litigation strategy even after initial rulings.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a mixed action before the UPC, including an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation against Vibrantz GmbH concerning EP 3 215 288. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement lawsuit and rejected all other pending applications. While the core dispute involved technical aspects of metal sintering preparations used in electronics, the decision also touched upon complex procedural issues regarding the binding effect of national invalidity judgments across various jurisdictions.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC brought an infringement action against ASUSTek and its subsidiaries regarding the use of their 5G-enabled devices, alleging that these products utilized technology covered by EP 3 972 309. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. Crucially, the court also declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent invalid for a wide range of UPC member states, providing a significant defense for the defendants.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a combined infringement and revocation action against Vibrantz GmbH concerning the European Patent EP 3 215 288, which covers metal sintering preparations used in electronics. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the infringement claim and rejected all other related applications. Despite the loss for the claimant, the decision provided important commentary on how national law governs the binding effect of prior national revocation judgments within the UPC framework.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc, ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC brought an infringement action against ASUSTek-affiliated companies regarding their 5G products, alleging that the devices utilized technology covered by EP 3 972 309. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. Crucially, the court also declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent invalid in numerous UPC member states, providing a dual victory for the defendants.
Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z o.o. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision, issued by the President of the Court of First Instance in Munich, addressed a procedural request regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving OPPO and Crystal Clear Codec. The defendants requested that the court change the language from German to English, citing fairness and industry standards. Crucially, the claimant agreed to this change, leading the court to issue an order adopting English as the official language for the remainder of the litigation.
Sanofi SA (and associated Sanofi entities) v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, and other defendants
In this complex pharmaceutical infringement case, Sanofi initiated proceedings against several competitors regarding the validity of EP patent 2 493 466. The court issued a procedural order summoning party experts to address critical questions concerning the inventive step and the reasonable expectation of success in oncological clinical trials (specifically referencing the TROPIC study). This hearing will focus on whether sufficient data existed at the priority date to justify the trial's progression, making it a significant case for pharmaceutical patent practitioners.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP), Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order in the UPC Munich Local Division sets the stage for a complex pharmaceutical patent dispute involving Sanofi and various generic competitors. The court has scheduled detailed expert testimony to address highly technical questions concerning oncological clinical trials, specifically regarding the reasonable expectation of success for the patented drug. This focus on factual evidence related to industry practice is crucial as it will directly inform the panel's decision on whether the patent lacks inventive step (obviousness).
Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Mature IP (represented by Sanofi SA) v.Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare B.V.
This procedural order in a complex pharmaceutical patent dispute between Sanofi and Accord Healthcare (and related defendants) sets the stage for critical expert testimony and oral hearings. The core of the case revolves around the validity of European Patent EP 2 493 466, specifically challenging its inventive step based on clinical trial data (TROPIC study). The court has scheduled detailed sessions to allow experts to address complex factual questions regarding oncological drug development, which will ultimately inform the legal question of obviousness. This case highlights the UPC's structured approach to integrating technical expertise into patent litigation.
Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi AB v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order in a complex pharmaceutical infringement case involving Sanofi against multiple defendants sets the stage for intensive litigation. The core dispute revolves around the inventive step of EP 2 493 466, specifically concerning the reasonable expectation of success derived from clinical trials (TROPIC study). The court has scheduled extensive expert testimony and oral hearings to allow the panel to address highly technical factual questions related to oncology drug development before making a final decision on validity and infringement. This case highlights the UPC's capacity to handle deep scientific and medical complexities in patent disputes.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Ecovacs Home Service Robotics Co.,Ltd.
In this procedural order concerning a patent infringement case involving Ecovacs and Papst Licensing, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for deadline extensions by one of the defendants. The court ultimately rejected the motion, finding that the defendant's primary motivation was procedural simplification rather than an urgent need to prepare its defense. This decision highlights the Court's focus on balancing procedural efficiency with the claimant's interests in maintaining timely proceedings.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation; Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.; Xiaomi Inc.; Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.; Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH; Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S.; Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.; Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB; Romania Xiaomi Communication Technology S.R.L.
In a procedural order within the UPC case UPC_CFI_609/2025, UERAN Technology LLC (Claimant) is pursuing infringement against various Xiaomi entities. The court granted a motion filed by one of the defendants, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, to establish a unified deadline regime for all parties involved in the litigation. This ruling streamlines the complex procedural landscape, addressing issues related to service and seasonal delays, which is crucial for efficient UPC case management.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA; IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Belparts Group N.V. sought to consolidate its current infringement action with a parallel counterclaim pending before the Central Division Paris, arguing for consistent application of UPC law. Although IMI consented to the consolidation, the Local Division Munich dismissed the request. The Court found that since the proceedings were lodged in different divisions (Local vs. Central), the statutory requirement under R. 302.3 RoP was not satisfied.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
In this procedural order within the UPC infringement case (UPC_CFI_610/2025), UERAN Technology LLC successfully petitioned for a unified and streamlined timeline. The court granted the request, which aimed to prevent delays caused by incomplete service of process on all defendants, including those in China. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility and party cooperation as key drivers for efficient litigation within the UPC framework.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In a procedural order concerning solar technology patents, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a stay to both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision was made because the parties are actively negotiating a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding the disputed patent EP 4 372 829. The Court also ensured that if the proceedings resume, all deadlines will be reset, providing procedural certainty while allowing time for commercial resolution.
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH v.Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH sought an extension of deadlines related to its infringement claim against Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH concerning EP 2 133 289. The court partially granted the request, setting a new deadline for various pleadings until September 5, 2025. This decision highlights the UPC's strict procedural adherence, where extensions must be calculated carefully to avoid conflicts with subsequent hearing dates and rules regarding weekend extensions.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning a patent infringement case, the court addressed a motion by MediaTek Germany GmbH to require cost security from Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering Huawei to deposit €150,000 as security for legal costs. This ruling highlights the UPC's approach to balancing procedural fairness and financial risk when dealing with international parties, particularly those based outside the EU/EEA.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for public access to confidential case documents in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC and TCL. Despite the underlying claims being withdrawn by the parties, the Court recognized a general interest in judicial transparency. The court granted the applicant access to redacted versions of key pleadings and exhibits, setting a precedent for balancing openness with confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B. V., Energy3000 solar GmbH, Thomas Seifert
In a procedural order issued on August 26, 2025, the UPC stayed an infringement action concerning EP 3 297 043 B1. The stay was granted because both the Claimant and several Defendants were engaged in settlement negotiations. Additionally, the Court extended the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence to five months to accommodate the procedural pause. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation where out-of-court settlements are actively being pursued.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm for patent infringement concerning EP 1 552 669. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and had not been properly withdrawn, thus stripping the UPC of jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the formal requirements for withdrawing an opt-out. The ruling confirms that proper registration and adherence to procedural rules are sufficient, even without explicit proof of a power of attorney from the proprietor.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 875 683. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and thus the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the procedural effectiveness of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. The ruling confirms that formal requirements for withdrawal are sufficient, even without explicit proof of power of attorney by a registered UPC representative.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 552 399. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an opt-out had not been validly withdrawn, thereby limiting the Court's jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the formal requirements of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. This ruling confirms that proper registration and adherence to procedural rules are sufficient for withdrawal, even without explicit proof of representation authority.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
This UPC decision addresses both infringement and revocation claims concerning EP 2 387 547 B1. While the court provided extensive legal guidance on patent scope, exhaustion, and indirect infringement, it ultimately found the defendants liable for damages due to infringement. Despite this finding of liability, the main lawsuit was dismissed, indicating a complex outcome where remedies were granted but the overall claim failed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
Huawei initiated infringement proceedings against MediaTek regarding its Dimensity series chips, which are alleged to infringe EP 3 905 840 B1. A key procedural development was the dispute over the disclosure of confidential license agreements and licensee names. The UPC court issued a detailed order granting protective measures under Rule 262A VerfO, strictly limiting access to sensitive information while allowing the infringement case to proceed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a complex infringement case involving Huawei and MediaTek concerning 5G-capable Dimensity chips, the UPC issued an interim procedural order focusing on confidentiality. The court granted extensive protection for trade secrets related to licensing agreements, limiting access to highly sensitive information only to specific parties. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for managing confidential data during litigation, which is crucial in high-tech patent disputes.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd.; Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Benia New Material Technology Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich separated an infringement action involving Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. against four Chinese defendants. The separation was necessitated by differing service timelines for the defendants, allowing proceedings to continue against two parties while awaiting service on the remaining two. This decision highlights the court's flexibility in managing complex multi-defendant cases under the UPC framework.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving major mobile technology players. The Court granted the request to switch from German to English, aligning with the patent's granted language. This ruling emphasizes that fairness and the operational realities of multinational defendants—who communicate internationally in English—must be weighed heavily against local court preferences.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc.
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addressed a security for costs dispute in an ongoing UPC case. The Court rejected the Claimant's proposal to use litigation insurance as adequate security. Instead, it mandated that Syntorr LP provide €2 million in security by September 30, 2025. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of Rule 158(1) RoP regarding acceptable forms of financial guarantees in UPC proceedings.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc.
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addresses a security for costs dispute in an ongoing UPC case involving Syntorr LP and Arthrex. The Court rejected the Claimant's proposal to use litigation insurance as adequate security. Instead, it mandated that the Claimant provide €2 million in security by September 30, 2025. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of Rule 158(1) RoP regarding acceptable forms of financial guarantees in UPC proceedings.
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.