Munich (DE) Local Division
325 cases · page 5 of 11
Showing 121–149Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 152 073, the UPC Local Division Munich granted Syngenta Limited's request to amend its claim to include territories outside the core UPC jurisdiction (Poland, Czech Republic, and UK). This decision addresses the legal uncertainty created by recent ECJ rulings regarding infringement in non-UPC states. The court determined that Syngenta was not required to make this amendment earlier due to the evolving legal landscape, allowing the main infringement and revocation proceedings to proceed across these expanded territories.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed the continuation of a complex infringement case involving 10x Genomics and Bruker. After significant delays and disputes over the number of auxiliary requests filed by one claimant, the Court ruled that the proceedings should immediately continue. The decision highlighted the importance of balancing proportionality with the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, especially when procedural hurdles are resolved.
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, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural UPC case concerning a patent infringement action involving EP 2 401 365, the Court addressed the request for security for costs. The Defendants successfully convinced the Court to order the Claimant to provide EUR 1.5 million in security, which was equally distributed between two groups of defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer). Crucially, while granting the security requirement, the Court dismissed the premature demand for a decision by default under Rule 355 RoP, maintaining procedural integrity.
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, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural matter concerning a patent infringement action involving EP 2 401 365, the UPC Court addressed the request for security for costs. The Claimant, Promosome LLC, was ordered to deposit EUR 1.5 million to cover potential legal expenses of the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer group). Crucially, while the court granted the security requirement based on party agreement, it firmly rejected the premature demand by the Defendants for a default judgment under Rule 355 RoP, maintaining procedural integrity.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril Life Sciences addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most pending applications but issued a specific protective measure regarding sensitive legal billing details. This decision highlights the practical application of confidentiality rules (Rule 262A RoP) in complex litigation, particularly concerning attorney-client privilege and fee structures.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most procedural applications, effectively closing related workflows. Crucially, despite dismissing the main cost decision, the Judge issued a specific protective measure, ordering both Edwards Lifesciences and Erik Krahbichler not to disclose Meril's marked confidential data.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences sued Meril entities for infringing its prosthetic heart valve patent (EP 3 669 828 B2). The UPC Local Division Munich issued a comprehensive decision, granting provisional damages of EUR 663,000 and ordering the defendants to cease infringement. Beyond the merits, the court provided important procedural guidance on suing multiple related entities under UPCA rules and applying EPO's problem-solution approach in litigation.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al. (Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich rejected a request by major pharmaceutical companies (BioNTech and Pfizer group) to compel their opponent, Promosome LLC, to disclose detailed raw data from expert reports. The Defendants argued that they needed access to this data to properly defend against infringement claims related to mRNA technology for SARS-CoV-2. The Court ruled that the request lacked specificity regarding contested facts and reiterated that parties are generally free to determine their own supporting evidence.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al.
In this UPC case, Promosome LLC sought to compel BioNTech and its affiliates to produce detailed raw data and experimental methods used in an expert report related to patent infringement. The Defendants argued that access to this data was necessary for them to properly defend against the infringement claims. However, the Court rejected the request, emphasizing that the defendants failed to specify concrete facts or evidence they wished to contest. This decision reinforces the high threshold required for a Rule 190 request, even when made by a defendant.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S; Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich rejected the preliminary objection raised by Ascendis Pharma against BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.'s infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 175 863. The Court ruled that BioMarin had adequately established jurisdiction and competence by demonstrating alleged infringing acts within Germany. Consequently, the proceedings will continue to the main substantive phase, where the legal characterization of the disputed acts will be examined.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH v.SOTRAS - S.R.L.
In this UPC case concerning EP 2 762 219, MANN+HUMMEL GmbH sought interim measures against SOTRAS - S.R.L. However, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to a request for withdrawal of the application. The Local Division allowed the withdrawal, confirming that no legitimate interest was shown by the respondent in having the case decided. Although the main action was dropped, MANN+HUMMEL successfully secured a refund of 60% of its court fees.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed requests for extensions and case management adjustments in a patent infringement action involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics. The court granted the requested extension, allowing Samsung more time to respond to key applications concerning claim amendments and case review. This decision highlights the Court's role in managing complex litigation timelines while also issuing guidance on efficient procedural practice.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a critical procedural issue regarding the synchronization of proceedings between the Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Office. The claimant successfully sought permission to amend its infringement claims, incorporating changes made during EPO opposition proceedings and introducing a newly discovered infringing product. The court emphasized that true synchronization requires the ability to translate EPO amendments into actionable claim versions within the UPC action, setting important procedural boundaries for patent litigation practitioners.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
In a procedural order issued on March 19, 2025, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed case UPC_CFI_665/2024 (Adeia Guides Inc. v. Disney). The court rectified a minor typo in the existing scheduling order. This administrative step confirms that the infringement action remains active and sets the date for the oral hearing on January 15, 2026. While no substantive legal rulings were made, this highlights the ongoing procedural management of complex UPC litigation.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This UPC costs determination case involved the aftermath of a patent infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 225 320. The core dispute centered on the reasonableness and necessity of legal fees claimed by the defendant, EJP Maschinen GmbH, for both the infringement suit and the counterclaim for revocation. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent regarding costs, setting a specific amount payable by the claimant, MSG Maschinenbau GmbH.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for security for costs in an infringement proceeding involving solar technology. The Court ultimately granted the request, despite the Claimant's argument that non-EU domicile alone should not be grounds for such an order. The ruling hinged on practical difficulties faced by European courts when serving documents in China, specifically citing issues related to the Hague Service Convention. This case highlights how procedural enforcement challenges can override general principles of jurisdiction and cost allocation within the UPC framework.
Sanofi (various entities) v.Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H.
This procedural order addressed Medac's attempt to withdraw an application concerning a privileged and confidential document (Exhibit 2) that had been uploaded into the UPC system. The court permitted the withdrawal but issued a strong warning against Medac's representative for negligently breaching the Code of Conduct by uploading the unredacted material. This decision underscores the strict procedural requirements regarding confidentiality and evidence handling within the UPC framework.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This UPC costs decision addressed the allocation of legal fees arising from a complex infringement and revocation action involving EP 3 225 320. The court scrutinized the reasonableness and necessity of the defendant's extensive cost claims, including those related to 'strategic considerations.' Ultimately, the court partially granted the claim for costs, ordering the claimant to pay €33,224.50 to the respondent. A key procedural point was the rejection of interest on awarded costs.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
In this UPC case, Dolby International AB sued Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. for infringement of EP 3 490 258. The defendants raised a complex jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the UPC's legal basis was incompatible with EU law. The court decisively rejected these arguments, confirming its jurisdiction based on the claimants' assertions. Consequently, the exception was dismissed, and the main infringement proceedings will proceed, setting the stage for further litigation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku Inc.
In this UPC case, Sun Patent Trust sued Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. for infringement of EP 2 903 267. The defendants raised significant jurisdictional challenges, arguing that the EPCG was incompatible with EU law (AEUV/EUV). The court decisively rejected these arguments, affirming the UPC's jurisdiction over both current and past acts of alleged infringement. Consequently, the opposition was dismissed, and the main infringement proceedings will proceed.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich allowed Hand Held Products, Inc. and Scandit AG to mutually withdraw their infringement claim and counterclaim concerning EP 3 866 051. The court formally terminated the proceedings based on this agreement. Crucially, the decision also addressed procedural fairness by ordering a partial refund of court fees for the defendant, setting an example for how timing issues affect financial outcomes in UPC litigation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku International B.V., Roku, Inc.
In this UPC case, Sun Patent Trust initiated infringement proceedings against Roku International and Roku Inc. The defendants raised a major jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the EPC is incompatible with EU law (EUV/AEUV). The Local Division of Munich rejected this opposition argument, affirming the court's jurisdiction to hear the infringement claim. Consequently, the revocation counterclaim was dismissed, allowing the main infringement case to proceed, and an appeal against this decision was admitted.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
Adeia Guides Inc. initiated infringement proceedings against The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates concerning European Patent EP 2 793 430. This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich confirms that the case will proceed as a dual action, encompassing both the infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation. Key dates have been set, including an interim conference in December 2025 and the main oral hearing in January 2026, signaling the active progression of this high-stakes IP dispute.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences sought protection for sensitive financial details related to its costs in an ongoing infringement action. The UPC Local Division Munich granted the request under Rule 262.2 RoP, recognizing that while proceedings are generally public, there is a legitimate interest in keeping negotiation fees and expert invoices confidential. This decision provides a crucial procedural safeguard for parties involved in complex litigation, balancing transparency with commercial sensitivity.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney Company Limited
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich sets the stage for a major infringement and revocation action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries regarding European Patent EP 2 793 430. The court confirmed that both parties would proceed with the full scope of claims, including the counterclaim for revocation. Key dates were set for the interim conference (December 4, 2025) and the oral hearing (January 15, 2026), moving the case into its substantive phase.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC decision addressed a critical procedural dispute regarding the timing of starting infringement proceedings. The Respondent (Sumi Agro) sought to revoke provisional measures because they argued that the court fees had not been 'received' by the Court before the deadline, thus missing the statutory window. The Court firmly rejected this interpretation, clarifying that 'paid' is sufficient under Rule 15(2) RoP, and starting proceedings simply means filing in the CMS. While the re-establishment application was dismissed, the decision granted leave to appeal due to fundamental questions of procedural law.
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, Pfizer, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Promosome LLC's request to classify specific license agreement exhibits as confidential against the BioNTech/Pfizer consortium. This decision reinforces the protection of trade secrets and sensitive commercial information within the UPC framework. The Court meticulously defined who could access the documents, ensuring that confidentiality obligations extend beyond the conclusion of the proceedings.
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, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted Promosome LLC's request to classify specific exhibits (VB 4a and VB 4b), which contain confidential license agreement terms between the parties, as confidential. The ruling establishes strict limitations on who can access this sensitive information, restricting it primarily to authorized legal representatives and their support staff. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting trade secrets within ongoing infringement actions.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the Headwater v. Samsung case sets the stage for a complex UPC trial concerning patent infringement and revocation of EP 2 391 947. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date and formally established the financial scope of the dispute, valuing the claim at €2 million and the counterclaim at €3 million. While settlement discussions were noted, the court maintained strict procedural control over evidence and arguments, particularly regarding late-filed documents and invalidity attacks.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance rejected Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH's request to amend its infringement action to include the Netherlands. The core issue was not patent validity or infringement itself, but whether the Claimant acted with due diligence after learning that the national part of EP 3 742 231 had been restored in the Netherlands. The Court found that the delay between becoming aware of the restoration and filing the amendment request was unreasonable, setting a clear precedent regarding procedural timeliness in UPC litigation.
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.