Munich (DE) Local Division
325 cases · page 4 of 11
Showing 91–119Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision addresses jurisdictional challenges in a complex infringement case involving multiple defendants (Motorola group and Flextronics). The Munich Local Division upheld its jurisdiction, clarifying the scope of Article 33(1)(b) EPGÜ. By dismissing the objections, the court allowed the main infringement proceedings to proceed against all parties, including the logistics provider, Flextronics International Europe B.V., who was accused of contributing to the infringement.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision addresses jurisdictional objections in a complex patent infringement case involving Headwater Research LLC against various Motorola entities and logistics providers. The court dismissed the defendants' objections, affirming its jurisdiction under Articles 33(1)(a) and (b) of the UPC Agreement. Crucially, the ruling clarifies the scope of Article 33(1)(b), stating it is an extension of jurisdiction but does not automatically permit unified claims against all parties without specific conditions. The main infringement proceedings will now proceed to a substantive hearing.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by both parties to stay ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 742 231. This decision allows Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH and XSYS entities to engage in settlement negotiations without the immediate pressure of litigation. The stay is tied to the timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings at the EPO, highlighting how UPC procedures can be managed alongside national/EPO actions.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
In a significant decision, the Munich Local Court dismissed Tiroler Rohre GmbH's infringement claim against SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH regarding driving tips (ram spikes). The court accepted the defendants' technical arguments, specifically that the alleged 'ledge' was not free-standing and that the contact surface was not flat as required by the patent claims. This ruling underscores the importance of precise claim construction in UPC litigation, particularly when dealing with functional or structural limitations.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 602 692, the claimant (Phoenix Contact) voluntarily withdrew its infringement suit against the respondents. The court subsequently allowed the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation as well. This decision highlights that voluntary withdrawals can lead to the termination of proceedings and trigger specific rules regarding the refund of court fees, providing a clear procedural path for parties seeking an amicable resolution.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG to withdraw its infringement claim against Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH. This withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties as part of an out-of-court settlement. Although the merits were not decided, the court issued a detailed cost allocation, refunding fees to both sides based on the timing of the withdrawals.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
In this UPC procedural order, the court allowed Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. to join the ongoing infringement action as an assisting party (Streithilfe). This move is significant as it allows a third party to participate in supporting or challenging the claims between Swarco Futurit and Yunex GmbH. The decision primarily addresses procedural matters, including requests for cost security deposits, keeping the core patent dispute active but with expanded participation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed rectification requests filed by Meril (the defendants) concerning a prior infringement and revocation action involving Edwards Lifesciences' prosthetic heart valve patent. The court agreed to correct several statements in the original decision, including clarifying claim scope and correcting clerical errors regarding opposition dates and disclosure orders. This ruling underscores the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting obvious mistakes in judicial decisions.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S, Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This procedural order in the BioMarin v Ascendis Pharma case sets critical dates for the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP patent 3 175 863. The court scheduled an interim conference for January 9, 2026, and a full oral hearing for March 18, 2026. Furthermore, the panel agreed to allocate a technically qualified judge in biotechnology, signaling the move toward substantive examination of the complex biotech patent.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This interim order in the UPC case between Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz focuses heavily on procedural consolidation. The court mandated that the claimant, Heraeus, submit a consolidated version of its formal claims by June 11, 2025. This move aims to streamline the proceedings, especially concerning how infringement claims relate to counterclaims for revocation across different jurisdictions. The parties are also urged to resume settlement discussions and establish a cost comparison.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a challenge by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH against an earlier order issued to preserve evidence and conduct inspections regarding patent EP 3 083 107. The court confirmed its initial ruling, finding that Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG had presented sufficient grounds for the preventive measures. Crucially, the court emphasized that the respondent's deliberate lack of cooperation in providing specific technical details justified the order, even if a direct risk of evidence destruction was not explicitly proven.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
Dolby International AB sought provisional measures at the UPC to prevent Roku, Inc. from pursuing Anti-Suit or Anti-Enforcement Injunctions in US courts related to the HEVC standard patent EP 3 490 258. The court ultimately denied Dolby's request for these protective measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate sufficient urgency and risk; otherwise, they may be liable for costs.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku, Inc.
In this UPC decision, Sun Patent Trust sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) against Roku, Inc., aiming to prevent Roku from pursuing related anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunctions in US courts. The court ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate a genuine risk of irreparable harm; here, the court found that the requested AASI was likely futile and risked prejudicing the claimant's rights without proper preliminary steps.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA
This procedural order in the Belparts v. IMI Hydronic case confirms the court's decision to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation simultaneously, despite potential conflicts between arguments presented in different proceedings. The UPC Local Division Munich set specific dates for future hearings, including an interim videoconference and a full oral hearing scheduled for June 2026. This order highlights the procedural flexibility of the UPC while managing complex litigation strategies involving multiple claims.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd's request to classify specific documents and information shared during infringement proceedings against MediaTek Germany GmbH as confidential trade secrets. The court affirmed that parties can successfully invoke Art. 58 EPC and Rule 262A VerfO to protect sensitive business information from public disclosure. This decision reinforces the robust protection of trade secrets within UPC litigation, mandating confidentiality not only for public access but also for all participants involved in the case.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a case concerning the infringement of EP 4 142 215, Huawei Technologies sought protective measures for its confidential business secrets against MediaTek. The UPC Local Division Munich ruled favorably, classifying specific documents as confidential and imposing strict duties of secrecy on all participants in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the robust protection available under the UPC framework for trade secrets during litigation, ensuring that sensitive information is not disclosed to third parties or the public.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB
Sanofi initiated infringement actions against Accord Healthcare and related entities concerning European patent EP 2 493 466, which covers a specific compound combination for treating advanced prostate cancer. The UPC Local Division Munich issued a procedural order confirming the case schedule, including an interim conference in September 2025 and the main oral hearing in October 2025. This ruling moves the litigation into its substantive phase, setting the stage for detailed arguments on infringement and validity.
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.
Sanofi initiated multiple infringement actions against various generic manufacturers, including Accord Healthcare and STADA, concerning the use of a specific compound combination for treating prostate cancer (EP 2 493 466). This procedural order confirms the court's schedule, setting key dates for interim conferences and the main oral hearing in October 2025. The case is currently moving through its written phase toward substantive litigation.
Sanofi SA (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
Sanofi initiated multiple infringement actions against Accord Healthcare concerning the use of a specific compound combination for treating prostate cancer (EP 2 493 466). This procedural order confirms the court's schedule, setting key dates for interim conferences and the main oral hearing in October 2025. The parties are now moving into the substantive phase of the litigation after initial filings.
Sanofi SA (and various Sanofi entities) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. (and various Accord Healthcare entities, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France, etc.)
Sanofi initiated multiple infringement actions against various defendants, including Accord Healthcare and STADA Nordic ApS, concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The UPC Local Division Munich issued a procedural order confirming the litigation schedule, setting deadlines for written submissions, and confirming dates for interim and oral hearings in late 2025. This case highlights the complex multi-defendant nature of pharmaceutical infringement suits within the unified patent court framework.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In a recent procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed scheduling issues in an infringement action brought by Maxell against Samsung. The court granted a request to harmonize deadlines for all defendants, setting a uniform service date and subsequent deadline for filing the Statement of Defence. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's ability to manage complex multi-defendant litigation across various jurisdictions efficiently.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In a significant procedural development concerning solar panel technology, the UPC Local Division Munich granted an extension to multiple defendants. The case involves Chinese claimants asserting infringement against several LONGi-related entities regarding European patent EP 4 372 829. This order allows all parties sufficient time to prepare their defenses and counterclaims for revocation, keeping the core dispute alive.
Promosome LLC v.Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer AB (and associated BioNTech entities)
Promosome LLC initiated an infringement action against Pfizer and its affiliates concerning various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants protected by EP 2 401 365. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts related to certain pre-June 2023 sales, citing the principle of non-retroactivity in international law. The Court acknowledged its subject matter competence but deferred the conclusive decision on the jurisdictional challenge to the main proceedings, allowing the case to proceed.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
Promosome LLC initiated an infringement action against BioNTech and Pfizer regarding various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants, citing EP 2 401 365. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that occurred before the UPCA came into force (specifically concerning the BA.1 variant). The Court ruled that while its competence is not retroactive, it defers the resolution of this jurisdictional challenge to the main proceedings, allowing the infringement action to proceed for now.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for security for costs. The court ruled in favor of Emboline, Inc., requiring AorticLab srl to provide €200,000 in security. This decision highlights that when a party themselves raises concerns about insolvency following an injunction, it satisfies the legal requirement for granting security for costs under the UPC Agreement.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC procedural order addressed a request by Heraeus Electronics to extend its response deadline, citing the vacation of key members of its Confidentiality Club and delays in accessing confidential documents. The court corrected the start date for Heraeus's deadlines based on when access was actually granted (March 18, 2025). However, the court ultimately denied the request for further extensions, stating that personal vacations do not affect procedural timelines.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH; Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.; Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich relates to an ongoing infringement action involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril entities concerning European patent EP 3669828. The claimant sought an authentic paper copy of a prior decision for enforcement purposes, which was granted by the court. This ruling is significant as it streamlines the administrative process necessary to move from judgment to execution within the UPC framework.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed an issue of service in a solar technology infringement case involving Jinko Solar and LONGi Solar. The court determined that despite a defendant failing to collect a registered letter containing the statement of claim, the attempted service was valid under the Rules of Procedure. This ruling ensures procedural efficiency by establishing a deemed date of service for the defendant, allowing the main infringement action to move forward.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
In this UPC procedural order, Headwater Research LLC sought to separate the infringement case against one respondent (Beklagte zu 5) due to significant delays. The court ultimately denied this request, prioritizing process economy over the claimant's desire for a faster resolution. The ruling emphasized that since all parties are linked in the supply chain and address the same core issues, keeping them together prevents contradictory judgments.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.Soltech Energy GbR
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed issues of service on defendants. The Court confirmed that despite one defendant failing to collect a registered letter notification for two weeks and subsequently refusing acceptance, the statement of claim was deemed validly served according to Rule 271.6.b RoP. This ruling ensures procedural efficiency by establishing a clear date of service, allowing the infringement case against Soltech Energy GbR to move forward.
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.