322 cases · page 4 of 11
Showing 91–119Lenovo (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.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 05.06.2025 KLÄGERIN PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG, Flachsmarktstraße 8-28, 32825 Blomberg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Rechtsanwalt Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte, Ismaninger Stra
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 05.06.2025 KLÄGERIN PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG, Flachsmarktstraße 8-28, 32825 Blomberg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Rechtsanwalt Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte, Ismaninger Stra
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning Meril's applications under Rule 353 RoP for rectification of the court's decision of 4 April 2025 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 669 828 (titled 'Prosthetic Heart Valve'). The court granted rectification of five items (1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) relating to corrections of claim references, a date error, translation errors in operative orders, and the claims asserted, but dismissed the remaining three items (4, 5, and 6) as unfounded.
Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 643 717, in which the plaintiff Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. sued defendant Yunex GmbH. Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd applied to intervene in support of the defendant's request to dismiss the infringement claim. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant objected to the intervention, and the presiding judge granted the intervention application, rendering the prior invitation to intervene moot.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S, Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3 175 863. The order addresses the coordination of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation, setting key dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure. The panel also requested the appointment of a technically qualified judge in the field of biotechnology.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288, following an interim video hearing held on May 28, 2025. The dispute involves infringement claims by Heraeus against Vibrantz and a counterclaim for revocation. The order addresses procedural matters including the consolidation of formal requests, the admissibility of the revocation counterclaim for Germany, and the handling of late defendant submissions on factual and legal issues.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This case concerns a review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure of an ex parte order for evidence preservation and inspection issued on February 3, 2025. The applicant, Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG, sought evidence preservation measures against ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH in connection with European Patent EP 3 083 107. The respondent challenged the order, arguing that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of patent infringement and the risk of loss of evidence. The court rejected the respondent's request to lift the order, finding that the applicant had presented all reasonably available evidence to support its claim of patent infringement.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This case concerns an application by Sun Patent Trust for review of an order concerning interim measures against Roku, Inc. in proceedings involving European Patents EP 2 903 267 and EP 3 200 463. The dispute arose after Roku filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking, among other things, an anti-suit injunction against Sun Patent Trust. The court addressed key questions regarding cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, the necessity of prior cease-and-desist letters before seeking interim measures, and the circumstances under which such warnings are dispensable.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This order concerns an application by Dolby International AB for review of a provisional measures order against Roku, Inc. in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The dispute arose after Roku filed a counterclaim for invalidity in the existing infringement proceedings and subsequently initiated a US lawsuit seeking, among other things, an injunction to prevent Dolby from pursuing the UPC action. The court addressed the question of cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, holding that a prior warning (Abmahnung) is not a prerequisite for provisional measures but that its absence may affect cost allocation, particularly when the respondent immediately offers a cease-and-desist declaration.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA, IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance scheduling proceedings in an infringement action concerning European patent no. 3 812 870. The panel decided not to bifurcate the proceedings and will hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, setting an interim videoconference for 24 March 2026 and an in-person oral hearing in Munich for 18 June 2026.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei requested that certain information highlighted in grey in the statement of claim, along with related annexes marked as confidential, be classified as confidential under Article 58 of the EPG Agreement in conjunction with Rules 262.2 and 262A.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich granted the request, ordering that the confidential information be protected from access by the opposing party and the public, and that the defendants not disclose such information to third parties or use it outside the proceedings.
STADA Nordic ApS v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel compounds for treating prostate cancer. The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, have brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur issued orders regarding the procedural schedule, including deadlines for rejoinders, closure of written procedure, interim conferences, and the oral hearing.
Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare AB
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer). The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, sought cease and desist orders against defendants (Accord Healthcare, STADAPHARM, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities) for their sales of CABAZITAXEL ACCORD in various UPC Member States. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the EPO Board of Appeal decision and filed revocation counterclaims. The judge-rapporteur declined to stay the proceedings and set out the further procedural timetable.
Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva France
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in four consolidated sets of patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for treating castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva generic pharmaceutical companies across various UPC member states. The order addresses preliminary objections, sets further procedural deadlines, and confirms dates for interim conferences and the oral hearing.
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.