Munich (DE) Local Division
374 cases · page 3 of 13
Showing 61–89Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by the defendants (Arthrex entities) for security for costs in proceedings concerning EP 2 670 898. The court held that the claimant's litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement did not constitute adequate security under Rule 158(1) RoP, and ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 2,000,000 by 30 September 2025, either by bank guarantee or deposit in the UPC's account.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 4 142 215. MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for trade secrets contained in its Statement of Defense (Non-Technical Part), relying on an out-of-court confidentiality agreement concluded between the parties on 11.07.2025. The court granted the application in part, ordering that certain information be treated as confidential, restricting public access, and limiting access on Huawei's side to specifically named attorneys and a limited number of natural persons, with potential fines of up to €250,000 for violations.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 4 142 215. MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for trade secrets contained in its Statement of Defense. The court granted the application in part, ordering that certain information be treated as confidential and restricting access on Huawei's side to specifically named lawyers, their support staff, and a limited number of named natural persons.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd brought a patent infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215 before the Local Chamber Munich. MediaTek Germany filed an application under Rule 190 RoP for the submission of license agreements and a related application under Rule 262A RoP seeking confidentiality protection, relying on an out-of-court confidentiality agreement concluded between the MediaTek group and Huawei on 11 July 2025. The court granted the confidentiality application in part, classifying certain information as confidential, imposing confidentiality obligations on all participants, and restricting access on Huawei's side to specified lawyers and seventeen named natural persons.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Unified Patent Court decision.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC filed an infringement action against Samsung entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947, titled 'Verifiable device assisted service policy implementation,' alleging that Samsung's mobile devices running Android 7 or higher infringed claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and/or 35. Samsung contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, also seeking to challenge the patent's validity on grounds including added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court held an oral hearing on 20 May 2025 and announced its decision on 1 August 2025, with the outcome indicating the patent was not found valid as granted or as amended.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action (UPC_CFI_487/2023) relating to European patent EP 2 645 714. The order grants an extension of the deadline for both parties to submit comments on a Rule 262.1(b) RoP request, extending it from 30 July 2025 to 12 August 2025 due to the absence of the Claimant's representatives. The order also addresses confidentiality protections for written submissions and exhibits.
Renault SAS (Application for Access to Court File under Rule 262.1(b) RoP) v.Ex Parte
Renault SAS applied for access to the court file and register of proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1, in which Avago Technologies had sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement and which had been terminated. The court granted Renault access to the specified pleadings and evidence in redacted form, balancing Renault's interest as a member of the public against the parties' confidentiality interests, but excluded court decisions and orders from the scope of access.
Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. & Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, relating to solar cell technology. The order addresses several procedural matters including a correction to the address on the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, confidentiality measures for information in the statement of defence, and the decision to handle both infringement and validity in the same proceedings. The court granted the defendants' requests for confidentiality protection, amended a prior provisional order, accepted the address correction, and confirmed that both infringement and validity would be decided together.
Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. & Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Others
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829. The claimants, Jinko entities, brought the action against multiple LONGi entities and other defendants. The Presiding Judge set dates for the interim conference (13 February 2026) and oral hearing (12 May 2026), while noting that proceedings against the fourth defendant would be deferred and the counterclaim would be addressed separately.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This order was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. All parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings in respect of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The presiding judge granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure, with the stay not to be lifted before 30 September 2025, and cancelled the scheduled interim conference and oral hearing dates.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd., Roborock Germany GmbH, and Roborock International B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 030 943. The defendants requested extensions of deadlines for filing their opposition, statement of defense, and counterclaim for revocation, with the claimant's consent. The presiding judge granted the extensions, setting the opposition deadline to August 26, 2025, and the defense/counterclaim deadlines to October 27, 2025.
Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich on July 24, 2025, concerning European Patent No. 2 515 768. The claimants (Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC) requested permission to bring two private interpreters at their own expense to the oral hearing scheduled for August 6, 2025. The presiding judge granted permission for the interpreters to participate from the Overflow Room 220b rather than the courtroom, but otherwise rejected the application.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (UPC_CFI_63/2025)
This case concerns an application by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH to revoke an evidence preservation and inspection order under Rule 198.1 EPGVerfO. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, holding that Nanoval GmbH had timely initiated main proceedings based on the revised deadline start date set by the rapporteur's order of March 18, 2025, which adjusted the deadline start to the date the expert's report was made accessible to Nanoval.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning a FRAND interim hearing in patent infringement proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 682 587. The court set out a timetable for further pleadings on the FRAND objection, with ASUS permitted to file until August 11, 2025, and Lenovo to respond until September 1, 2025. The order also confirmed upcoming dates for a further interim hearing (September 25, 2025, by video conference) and the main oral hearing (November 19, 2025, in person in Munich).
Sanofi SA and Others v.Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, and Dr Reddy's Srl
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference on 17 July 2025, addresses procedural matters including the timeline for the oral hearing, expert testimony on obviousness, and confidentiality issues regarding interim damages calculations. The court confirmed the oral hearing dates of 14–17 October 2025 and the final interim conference for 12 September 2025.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare entities and related defendants
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 17 July 2025, following an interim conference in consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent n° 2 493 466. The order addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025, expert testimony on obviousness issues related to the Phase III TROPIC study, and confidentiality arrangements regarding interim damages calculations. The claimants are various Sanofi entities, and the defendants comprise four groups: Accord Healthcare entities, STADA entities, Reddy Pharma/betapharm/Dr Reddy's entities, and Zentiva entities.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning four related infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference, addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of expert testimony via hot tubbing on obviousness issues, confidentiality arrangements regarding Sanofi's damages calculations, and the format of Sanofi's future briefs. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference (12 September 2025) and the oral hearing (14-17 October 2025).
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in patent infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The order addresses pending issues including the awaited written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent at an oral hearing in June 2025), ongoing French appeal proceedings regarding invalidation of the French part of the patent, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference and oral hearing, and addressed procedural matters including confidentiality of interim damages calculations and the format of Sanofi's briefs.
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH v.Ex Parte
The provided text contains only a digital signature block attributed to Anja Mittermeier dated July 16, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, case facts, legal arguments, or decision details available for analysis.
BioNTech SE and Others v.Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the BioNTech and Pfizer defendants for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The court rejected the requests, finding that the confidential information was already protected by an existing confidentiality order dated 10 March 2025, and that the information related to license agreements between the Claimant and the patent proprietor, who were already aware of it. The decision on a request to hold oral hearings behind closed doors was deferred to the oral hearing itself.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court scheduling a further interim hearing on FRAND in patent infringement proceedings. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann on July 15, 2025, sets a hearing date of July 21, 2025, to be held in person, in English, and entirely in camera due to the confidential nature of the topics to be discussed.
Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AG and Renault S.A.S. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (Order on Language of Proceedings)
The President of the Court of First Instance granted an application by the Renault defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which European Patent EP3726780 was granted. The claimant Avago Technologies opposed the change, arguing that the alleged infringement occurred exclusively in Germany and that German allowed for more precise communication. The court held that the position of the defendants should prevail in the balancing of interests, given the claimant's flexibility in choosing the forum and language.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. requested an extension of the deadline to respond to the defendants' submission of June 13, 2025, until July 9, 2025, citing technical unavailability of the UPC CMS filing system from July 3 to July 8, 2025. The court rejected the request, holding that the temporary CMS shutdown is already addressed by the automatic extension of deadlines under Rule 301.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC & Others
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order regarding cross-applications for security for costs in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 069. The court held that defendants who filed counterclaims for revocation could also seek security for costs related to those counterclaims under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP. The court ordered the plaintiff Headwater Research LLC to provide security of EUR 200,000 to the Motorola defendants and EUR 100,000 to Flextronics, while rejecting the plaintiff's own request for security from the defendants.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court held that defendants who are plaintiffs in counterclaims for revocation may also request security for costs related to those counterclaims. The plaintiff's request for security from the defendants was denied, while the defendants' requests were partially granted, with the plaintiff ordered to provide EUR 200,000 in security to defendants 1-3 and EUR 100,000 to defendant 5.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court held that defendants who filed counterclaims for revocation could claim security for costs related to those counterclaims, and ordered the plaintiff Headwater Research LLC to provide security of EUR 200,000 to the Motorola defendants and EUR 100,000 to Flextronics, while rejecting the plaintiff's own request for security from the defendants.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 110 069. The court held that a defendant in an infringement suit who files a counterclaim for revocation may seek security for costs related to that counterclaim under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP. The court ordered the plaintiff Headwater Research LLC to provide security of EUR 200,000 to the Motorola defendants and EUR 100,000 to Flextronics, while rejecting Headwater's request for security from the defendants.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The claimant Swarco Futurit sought an order requiring the intervener Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd to provide security of EUR 169,000 for potential cost reimbursement claims. The court rejected the application, following the Court of Appeal's reasoning in AorticLab v. Emboline (UPC_CoA_393/2025 APL_20694/2025).
Sanofi SA and Others v.Zentiva France and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The defendants (Zentiva entities) filed an application under Rule 333 RoP seeking review of a procedural order dated 8 May 2025 regarding case management. The panel confirmed the original order with a minor correction (a typo in the rule citation) and dismissed all of Zentiva's requests.
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.