306 cases · page 3 of 11
Showing 61–89Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. The dispute centers on MediaTek's request under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements, and Huawei's corresponding request under Rule 262A to classify certain information as confidential or strictly confidential. The order addresses the protection of confidential information in connection with Huawei's submission responding to the production request, referencing a confidentiality agreement between the parties.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd., Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd., Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Benia New Material Technolo-gy Co., Ltd.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. filed an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 147 029 against four Chinese defendants before the Local Division Munich. The court ordered the separation of proceedings because service had been effected on two defendants but not yet on the other two, creating mismatched procedural timelines. The action against the two served defendants was ordered to proceed separately, while both proceedings would remain before the same panel.
Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd, OROPE Germany GmbH, Reflection Investment B.V., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., Oleading B.V., OTECH Italia S.r.l., OTECH Germany GmbH, Realme Germany GmbH, OnePlus Technolog v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by the defendants (a group of OPPO, OnePlus, Realme, and related entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Innovative Sonic Corporation based on European Patent EP2765731. The defendants argued that English, being the language in which the patent was granted, should be used as the language of proceedings for reasons of fairness. The claimant opposed the application, requesting its dismissal or, alternatively, that the preferences of the first-instance panel be considered, or that oral proceedings be conducted in German even if the written language were changed.
Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a dispute over security for costs in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 670 898. The Defendants (Arthrex entities) requested EUR 3,300,000 in security (EUR 1,100,000 per Defendant), while the Claimant (Syntorr LP) opposed any security order or alternatively requested a reduced amount of EUR 1,000,000–2,000,000, offering to provide security via litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement. The Judge-rapporteur ordered the Claimant to provide EUR 2,000,000 in security by 30 September 2025, either by bank guarantee or deposit into the Court's account, ruling that the Claimant's insurance policy was not adequate security under Rule 158(1) RoP and that an amount exceeding the regular ceiling for recoverable costs was not justified.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215. Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for certain information, relying on a non-disclosure agreement concluded between the MediaTek group and Huawei on 11 July 2025. Huawei confirmed the NDA and raised no objections to the requested access restrictions. The Local Chamber Munich granted the application in the scope set out in the order, ordering confidentiality measures, exclusion of the public from hearings and judgment pronouncement regarding confidential information, redaction before publication, and exclusion of confidential information from third-party file access.
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.Respondent
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 v.Respondent
This procedural matter concerns an application by Renault SAS for access to the court register and file of three concluded proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1, in which Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited had sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement. The original infringement action and revocation counterclaim had been terminated following withdrawal permitted by decisions dated 7 January 2025. Renault sought access to review Avago's legal and technical arguments, claim interpretation positions, validity arguments, and patent amendments, while the defendants (Tesla) consented to access to a specific list of pleadings but opposed broader disclosure.
LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., Energy3000 solar GmbH, LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V. v.Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd.
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, Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., Energy3000 solar GmbH, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.
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.Respondent
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.
Roborock Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants for an extension of time limits in a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 3 030 943. The defendants sought to extend the deadline for filing their opposition under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure to August 26, 2025, and the deadlines for the statement of defense under Rule 23 and the counterclaim for revocation under Rule 25 to October 27, 2025. The plaintiff consented to the extensions, and the presiding judge granted the request.
Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning the arrangement of private interpreters at an upcoming oral hearing in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent No. 2 515 768. The claimants, Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC, requested permission to bring two private interpreters at their own cost to the oral hearing scheduled for August 6, 2025. The presiding judge ruled that the interpreters could participate from the Overflow Room 220b rather than the main courtroom 212, which lacks interpreter booths, and rejected the remainder of the request.
ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH for revocation of an evidence preservation and inspection order under Rule 198.1 of the EPG Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich addressed whether the rapporteur could retroactively change the starting date of the deadline for initiating main proceedings, given that the court-appointed expert had delivered the inspection report later than originally anticipated. The court held that while the length of the deadline is fixed, the starting date is within the court's discretion and may be modified, particularly when the expert submits the report late.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich following a FRAND interim hearing concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The court, presided over by Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, set out directions for the parties to exchange further written submissions on the FRAND objection, with ASUS permitted to file further submissions by August 11, 2025 and Lenovo to respond by September 1, 2025. The order also addressed scheduling matters, including a video conference interim hearing on September 25, 2025 and the confirmation of the oral hearing on November 19, 2025.
Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, 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 Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi B.V. v.Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare BV
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.
Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s. v.Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis France
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-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADAPHARM GmbH
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.Respondent
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 Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech SE, Promosome LLC, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer AB, Pfizer SAS v.Promosome LLC, 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.
UPC Decision UPC-000554 v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich scheduling a further interim hearing on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory licensing) in a patent infringement action brought by Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. against ASUSTek entities concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The presiding judge ordered an in-person hearing in English on July 21, 2025, to be held entirely in private due to the confidential nature of the FRAND topics to be discussed. The parties were directed to submit a participant list by July 18, 2025.
Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Munich issued an order on a procedural application by the Renault Defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action based on European Patent EP3726780. The Renault entities argued that English, the language in which the patent was granted, should be used for reasons of fairness. The Claimant, Avago Technologies, opposed the application. The order was issued pursuant to Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure, with the President providing a headnote on the assessment of language change applications.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. requested an extension of the deadline to respond to the defendants' brief dated June 13, 2025, until July 9, 2025, citing the temporary unavailability of the case management system from July 3 to July 8, 2025. The defendants consented to the extension. The presiding judge rejected the request, holding that there was no legal interest in granting it because Rule 301.2 of the Rules of Procedure already provides for an automatic extension of time in cases of temporary CMS unavailability.
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff Headwater Research LLC, asserting infringement of European Patent EP 3 110 072, sought security for costs from the defendants, while the defendants (Motorola entities and Flextronics) sought security from the plaintiff in connection with their counterclaims for revocation. The court held that even though a defendant in an infringement suit is formally the claimant in a revocation counterclaim, they may under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP demand security for the costs incurred or to be incurred through that counterclaim, as otherwise the defendant would be unreasonably restricted in their defense.
Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H., seeking an order requiring the intervenor, Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 169,000.00 in connection with an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717 against defendant Yunex GmbH. The intervenor opposed the application, requesting its rejection or, alternatively, a significant reduction in the amount. The presiding judge rejected the application, following the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in a prior decision (AorticLab v. Emboline), holding that security for costs should not be ordered for an admitted intervenor even though such an intervenor is treated as a party for cost reimbursement purposes.
Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH v.Respondent
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.
Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd. v.Headwater Research LLC
This decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Court of First Instance concerns an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC against several Motorola entities and Flextronics International Europe B.V. regarding European Patent EP 3 110 069. The ruling addresses procedural objections raised under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure, clarifying that a plaintiff may rely on additional jurisdictional bases beyond those initially cited in the statement of claim or in response to an objection. The Court further clarified the scope of Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 of the EPG Agreement, holding that it does not refer to Art. 33(1)(a) and does not impose special requirements for unified actions against multiple defendants who have all committed infringing acts or are domiciled in the relevant contracting member state.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a joint request by the parties to stay infringement and revocation proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 742 231 in order to facilitate settlement negotiations without the pressure of ongoing litigation. The court granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP until three months after the next oral proceedings of the EPO Board of Appeal in the parallel opposition appeal (T0187/24.-3.4.03), and cancelled the previously scheduled oral hearing of 7 October 2025.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned an infringement action by Tiroler Rohre GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 839 083 B9, against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy regarding pile driving tips (Rammspitzen) for tubular piles. The defendants sold competing pile tips under the designations GS115, GS140, and GS170. The defendants raised a counterclaim for revocation and filed an appeal. The court addressed the burden of proof regarding infringement arguments based on circumstances outside the patent claim, holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof for such arguments and that the infringement plaintiff is not required to present arguments about components outside the patent claim under Art. 54 EPGÜ.
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.