322 cases · page 3 of 11
Showing 61–89Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium v.Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, following the second interim conference in four consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants are generic pharmaceutical companies from four groups: Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva. The order addresses procedural matters including the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and rulings on the admissibility of late-filed evidence.
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 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 is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, concerning four consolidated infringement actions and counterclaims related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, sets out the schedule and procedural arrangements for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, addresses expert testimony, and rules on the admissibility of late-filed evidence. The patent was upheld by the EPO Board of Appeal at an oral hearing on 2–4 June 2025, with written reasons pending.
Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi A/S v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADAPHARM GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466. The Presiding Judge confirmed that expert testimony from two party experts would be heard at the oral hearing scheduled for 14-17 October 2025, addressing questions about the Phase III TROPIC study and reasonable expectation of success. The order summons the party experts and sets out the schedule, structure, and procedural framework for their testimony.
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, Sanofi Mature IP v.Dr Reddy's Srl, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning four consolidated infringement actions relating to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, addresses the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and various evidentiary rulings including the rejection of a late-filed affidavit by Zentiva.
ECOVACS Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning a request for extension of deadlines filed by Defendant 2 (ECOVACS Europe GmbH) in a patent infringement action brought by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG. The plaintiff alleges infringement of European Patent EP 3 494 446 against four Ecovacs group entities in China, Germany, France, and the United States. Defendant 2 seeks to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense and any counterclaim for invalidity until November 26, 2025, and the deadline for filing a Preliminary Objection until September 26, 2025, offering in return to facilitate service on the other three defendants to create a uniform deadline regime.
Belparts Group N.V. v.Respondent
Belparts Group N.V. filed an application under Rule 302.3 of the Rules of Procedure seeking consolidation of its infringement action pending before the Local Division Munich with a counterclaim for infringement pending before the Central Division Paris, both based on European patent EP 3 812 870. Despite the defendants' consent, the Presiding Judge dismissed the application, holding that the statutory prerequisite of proceedings being before the same local, regional, or central division was not satisfied.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 385 739. The plaintiff, UERAN Technology LLC, has brought claims against seven Xiaomi group entities. Defendant 5, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, requested the court to establish a unified deadline regime for all defendants and to extend the deadlines for reply and rejoinder by two weeks each to account for the Christmas and Easter holiday periods.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, in which the claimants (Jinko entities) and the defendants (LONGi entities and others) jointly requested a stay of both the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation. The court granted the stay because the parties were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive settlement agreement, ordering the claimants to notify the court of the outcome within six months.
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a deadline extension request in a patent infringement and revocation dispute involving European Patent EP 2 133 289. Due to irregularities in the CMS, the filing dates of the defendant's reply and counterclaim for revocation were inconsistent, creating uncertainty about the applicable deadlines. The plaintiff requested a six-day extension to September 9, 2025, which the defendant agreed to, but the court only partially granted the request, extending the deadline to September 5, 2025, to avoid subsequent deadlines falling on a weekend.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH sought an order requiring the plaintiff Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to provide security for costs under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP, arguing that as a Chinese-domiciled entity, enforcement of a cost order in China would be uncertain. Huawei countered by providing a legally binding assurance that any cost decision could be served on its German subsidiary, Huawei Technologies Deutschland GmbH.
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB v.Respondent
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB, a law firm, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings between NEC Corporation and various TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. NEC opposed the request, arguing it was not a reasoned request and that the stated educational purpose was pretexted. The Local Division Munich partially granted the request, allowing access to specific written pleadings in redacted versions, with personal data redacted and appendices to be provided upon further request.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.Respondent
The Claimant filed an infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1 before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant and Defendants 1 to 4 jointly requested a stay of proceedings due to ongoing settlement negotiations, and the Claimant also sought a stay regarding Defendant 5. The Court granted the stay under Rules 295(d) and 295(m) RoP, extended the time limit for filing the Statement of defence to five months, and ordered the parties to inform the Court if a settlement is reached.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection by Qualcomm defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 552 669. The court held that the withdrawal of an opt-out from the court's exclusive competence was effective, even though the UPC representative who filed the withdrawal application was neither the patent proprietor nor a registered representative in the national patent registers. The court ruled that a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Incorporated v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the patent had been validly opted out and the withdrawal of the opt-out was ineffective due to lack of proper authorization of the UPC representative who filed it. The court held that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective, as a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective, and such lack of representation cannot be raised as a preliminary objection.
Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants challenging the Court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 875 683. The court held that the opt-out from the Court's exclusive competence had been effectively withdrawn on 20 December 2023 by a registered UPC representative, and that the lack of a written mandate or power of attorney could not be invoked as a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1(a) RoP.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des einheitlichen Patentgerichts verkündet am 22. August 2025 betreffend EP 2 387 547 B1 LEITSÄTZE: 1. Zweckangaben in einem Vorrichtungsanspruch definieren eine Vorrichtung regelmäßig dahingehend, dass sie geeignet sein muss, für die
Huawei 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.
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.