Munich (DE) Local Division
325 cases · page 3 of 11
Showing 61–89Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC case concerning an infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek, the court issued a procedural order focused entirely on protecting trade secrets. The defendant successfully petitioned for strict confidentiality measures regarding sensitive information submitted in their defense pleadings. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, ensuring that proprietary knowledge remains shielded from public view and unauthorized access during litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a request for confidentiality regarding trade secrets arising from license negotiations between Huawei and MediaTek. The court successfully granted an order classifying specific documents as confidential information. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within UPC proceedings by applying existing rules analogously to ensure secrecy.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd sued MediaTek Germany GmbH for patent infringement concerning EP 4 142 215. The court addressed a request by MediaTek to protect confidential information submitted during the proceedings. The UPC granted an order establishing strict confidentiality measures, limiting access to trade secrets to specific parties and counsel. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing public transparency with the protection of sensitive business interests.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by MediaTek Germany GmbH to protect confidential information related to its licensing negotiations with Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court found that these documents constituted trade secrets and issued an order mandating strict confidentiality for all parties involved in the proceedings. This ruling reinforces the protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, even when public disclosure is otherwise expected.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC initiated an infringement action against Samsung Electronics concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947, which relates to verifiable device-assisted service policy implementation for data saving. Headwater alleges that various Samsung mobile devices running Android 7 or higher infringe the patent claims. Samsung has countered with a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent based on grounds including lack of inventive step and novelty. The case is currently in procedural stages before the UPC Local Division Munich.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses a request for an extension of deadlines in the infringement action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities regarding patent EP 2 645 714. The court granted the requested time extension, ensuring fairness between all parties involved in the complex litigation. Additionally, the ruling clarified the procedures for handling confidential information submitted during the proceedings under specific UPC Rules of Procedure. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility and careful management employed by the UPC CFI.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses an applicant's request for access to case files related to a patent infringement and revocation proceedings involving EP 1 770 912 B1. The court found that the applicant had a legitimate interest in reviewing the historical legal and technical arguments, particularly since the main litigation was already concluded. Access was granted to all relevant documents from the associated procedures (infringement, counterclaim for invalidity, and amendment application), with necessary redactions applied.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses several critical administrative and legal issues in a high-stakes solar technology dispute. The court granted comprehensive confidentiality protections for sensitive information submitted by the defendants, ensuring that trade secrets remain protected throughout the litigation process. Crucially, the panel decided to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, avoiding procedural inefficiency while addressing the technical complexity of the patent.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Jinko Solar against LONGi Solar sets the stage for a major patent dispute concerning solar panel technology. The court has scheduled an interim conference and a full oral hearing, confirming that the proceedings will cover both infringement and validity of the patent. This decision is significant as it moves the complex technical dispute into the active litigation phase within the UPC framework.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited initiated infringement proceedings against Sumi Agro Limited and its European subsidiary concerning EP patent n° 2 152 073. In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a stay of all proceedings at the request of both parties. This decision effectively pauses the litigation, allowing time for strategic reassessment by the involved companies.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG against Roborock entities concerns a request for deadline extensions related to patent EP 3 030 943. The court granted the extension, allowing defendants more time to file their responses and opposition due to the complexity of the matter and coordination with foreign parties. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines while maintaining process economy.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
This UPC decision is a procedural order concerning the logistics of an upcoming oral hearing in the Munich Local Division. Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC requested permission to use private interpreters due to facility limitations, which the Court partially granted. This ruling highlights the court's flexibility in accommodating parties' needs while maintaining procedural integrity.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues concerning evidence preservation and deadlines under Rule 198.1 EPGVerfO. The respondent sought to nullify an order because they argued that a change in the deadline's starting point constituted an impermissible extension of time. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that judicial discretion allows for adjusting the start date when expert reports are delayed. This ruling confirms the flexibility of procedural rules to ensure fair access to evidence.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
This interim order in the UPC case involving Lenovo and ASUS focuses heavily on procedural matters related to a FRAND objection concerning EP patent 3 682 587. The court granted extensions for both parties to submit their arguments, allowing them to incorporate materials from parallel proceedings into the main litigation. Crucially, the decision confirmed future dates for interim hearings and oral arguments, keeping the infringement case active but focused on procedural progress.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France) 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 sets the stage for a complex pharmaceutical patent infringement case involving Sanofi against multiple defendants, including Accord Healthcare and STADA. The court confirmed the dates for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing, indicating that the case is moving toward substantive arguments. A key focus remains on assessing obviousness, requiring parties to prepare expert testimony regarding industry knowledge at the priority date.
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 a major pharmaceutical patent dispute between Sanofi and various generic competitors (Accord, STADA, Reddy, Zentiva) sets the stage for the final stages of litigation. The court confirmed the dates for the final interim conference and the oral hearing, focusing heavily on complex issues like obviousness related to clinical trial data. Furthermore, the judge addressed procedural concerns raised by defendants regarding the drafting style of claimant's briefs.
Sanofi SA and associated entities (including Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, etc.) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France, etc.
This procedural order addresses multiple infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466, involving Sanofi as the claimant and various generic manufacturers (Accord Healthcare, Zentiva, etc.) as defendants. The court confirmed key dates for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing in October 2025. Furthermore, the judge addressed procedural concerns raised by the parties regarding the review of EPO decisions and the standardization of legal briefs across different defendant groups.
Sanofi SA (and related Sanofi entities) v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., etc.
This procedural order addresses multiple infringement actions involving Sanofi and various defendants, including STADA and Accord Healthcare. The court confirmed the schedule for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing, which will focus heavily on complex issues of obviousness related to clinical trial data (Phase III TROPIC study). Practitioners should note the court's proactive approach in managing expert evidence and procedural fairness across multiple related proceedings.
BioNTech SE v.Promosome LLC
This UPC Order addressed a request for protection of confidential information filed by the BioNTech group against Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute in an infringement action. The Court found that the requested confidentiality protections were redundant because the relevant documents and information were already covered by a pre-existing Confidentiality Order from March 2025. This decision reinforces the principle that existing protective measures within the UPC framework remain valid even if new applications are filed.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
The UPC Local Division in Munich issued a procedural order setting a date for an interim hearing focused specifically on FRAND issues in the ongoing infringement case involving Lenovo and ASUS. This hearing is confidential and will be conducted in English, allowing parties to discuss sensitive licensing terms outside of public scrutiny. The decision highlights the court's ability to manage complex technical and contractual disputes within the UPC framework.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
In this procedural ruling, Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. sought an extension of its deadline to respond to the defendants' submissions due to technical issues with the UPC CMS. The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected the request, finding that Lenovo failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest for the extension. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural rules within the UPC framework.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG; Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH; Renault S.A.S.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, based on the patent's grant language. The court ruled in favor of the defendants (Renault), establishing that the defendant's position must prevail when balancing interests under Art. 49(5) UPCA. This reinforces the principle that while fairness is key, the claimant's initial choice and the procedural context heavily influence the outcome.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the court addressed a motion for security for costs. Despite the Claimant's status as an entity primarily focused on licensing, the court found sufficient grounds to mandate that the Claimant provide financial guarantees to the Respondents. This decision reinforces the procedural right of defendants in the UPC to seek cost protection when they perceive the claimant lacks the necessary financial stability to cover litigation expenses.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
In this UPC decision concerning infringement of EP 3 110 069, the court addressed a motion for security for costs. Despite the defendants having filed counterclaims seeking revocation, the court found that they were entitled to demand financial security from the claimant (Headwater Research LLC). The ruling mandates Headwater to deposit EUR 200,000 for Motorola entities and EUR 100,000 for Flextronics International Europe B.V., highlighting the practical application of cost protection rules in complex UPC litigation.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 3 110 069), the court addressed a motion for security for costs. Although the defendants filed counterclaims seeking revocation, they were still granted the right to demand financial security from the claimant. The ruling emphasizes that cost protection is available even when the defendant has raised a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity, provided there are sufficient doubts regarding the claimant's ability to cover defense expenses.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for security for costs in an infringement case involving Headwater Research LLC and several Motorola/Flextronics entities concerning patent EP 3 110 072. The court found that the claimant, Headwater Research LLC, lacked sufficient financial standing to cover potential litigation costs, particularly given its business model as a patent licensing entity with limited operational scale. Consequently, the claimant was ordered to deposit EUR 200,000 for Motorola entities and EUR 100,000 for Flextronics International Europe B.V. This ruling underscores the court's power to enforce financial safeguards in complex UPC proceedings.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion concerning the requirement for a third-party intervenor to provide a financial security deposit in an infringement case. The claimant sought to compel Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., who was involved as a third-party intervener, to post EUR 169,000.00. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that while the intervener is treated like a party for cost purposes, ordering security deposits in such circumstances is not warranted.
Sanofi SA v.Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order addressed a dispute between Sanofi and Zentiva regarding the timeline and scope of written submissions in an infringement action concerning EP patent 2 493 466. Zentiva sought to amend the case management schedule, arguing that the existing deadlines were insufficient or unclear. The UPC Panel dismissed these requests, upholding the judge-rapporteur's procedural order. This decision reinforces the strict application of the Rules of Procedure in managing complex infringement litigation within the UPC.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd.
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses jurisdictional objections raised by Motorola entities in a patent infringement case brought by Headwater Research LLC concerning wireless mobile devices. The court dismissed these objections, affirming its jurisdiction under the UPC Agreement. Crucially, the ruling clarifies the scope of Article 33(1)(b) EPCG, limiting its application and confirming that the main infringement proceedings will proceed to trial. This decision provides important guidance on how jurisdictional rules are interpreted in complex multi-defendant cases within the UPC.
Headwater Research LLC v.Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision by the Munich Local Division addresses jurisdictional objections raised in a complex infringement case involving Motorola and its supply chain partners, including Flextronics. The court dismissed the defendants' challenges regarding jurisdiction, allowing the main proceedings to continue. The ruling provides important clarification on how Art. 33 of the UPC Agreement applies when multiple parties are involved, particularly concerning non-infringing entities like logistics providers.
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.