322 cases · page 5 of 11
Showing 121–149Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France v.Dr Reddy's Srl, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS
Procedural order issued by 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 for use in treating prostate cancer. The claimants, comprising multiple Sanofi entities, brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur ordered that preliminary objections be dealt with in the main proceedings and set out the schedule for the remaining written and oral procedure.
Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Maxell, Ltd. against five Samsung entities regarding European patent No. 2 403 266. Samsung filed a Rule 9 application seeking a uniform deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all Defendants, citing disparate actual service dates and anticipated delays in serving the Korean Defendant. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 5 August 2025 for all Defendants and instructing the Registry to enter 5 May 2025 as the virtual service date for all Defendants.
Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European patent no. 4 372 829. The order addresses the service of the statement of claim on Defendant 2 (LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.) and extends the deadline for Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation until 21 July 2025, following an agreement between the parties.
BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH v.Promosome LLC
Promosome LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365, targeting several Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant (embodiment 2b), arguing it was produced and sold only before 1 June 2023, making jurisdiction contrary to the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. The judge-rapporteur held that the preliminary objection was admissible but deferred its final determination to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, pending a related Court of Appeal decision.
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. , Pfizer AB v.Promosome LLC
Promosome LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 and various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant, arguing it was only produced and sold before 1 June 2023, relying on Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The judge-rapporteur deferred the preliminary objection to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, expressing a non-binding view concurring with existing UPC case law that the UPC has subject-matter competence over allegedly infringing acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force.
Emboline, Inc. v.Respondent
1. The one who files a counterclaim for revocation (Art. 32 (1) e) UPCA) is an “Applicant” according to Art. 69 (4) UPCA. 2. Anyone who claims that he would be driven into insolvency in case of an injunction to desist, confirms that his financial position gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable. Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_628/2024 ACT_58638/2024 App_8962/2025 2 APPLICANT (CLAIMANT IN THE INFRINGEMENT PROCE
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the commencement of the reply deadline in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 215 288. The plaintiffs (Heraeus) sought an extension of their reply deadline to May 2, 2025, arguing that members of their Confidentiality Club only gained access to the unredacted pleadings on April 1, 2025, rather than March 17, 2025 as the court had assumed. The defendant (Vibrantz) requested clarification that the defendant's reply period begins April 22, 2025 and written proceedings end no earlier than May 22, 2025. The court addressed the question of when time limits begin to run in the context of a provisional Confidentiality Club and the impact of vacation absences of its members.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3669828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation notified the court of its intention to enforce specific parts of a decision dated 4 April 2025 pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP. The defendants (Meril entities) agreed not to request a translation and confirmed compliance with the relevant orders, and the court ordered the issuance of an authentic paper copy of the decision.
Syngenta Limited v.Respondent
Syngenta Limited applied to the Local Division Munich for leave to amend its claim to extend the territorial scope of the infringement action to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom, following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (C-3999/22). Sumi Agro opposed, arguing the amendment could have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. The Court granted the application, holding that Syngenta could not reasonably have been expected to include the non-UPC territories in its original statement of claim, and adjusted the procedural timetable accordingly.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.Soltech Energy GbR, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., Energy3000 solar GmbH
This Procedural Order addressed the issue of service of the statement of claim on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) in a patent infringement action concerning European patent No. 4 372 829. A registered letter sent via Deutsche Post was notified for collection on 10 March 2025 but was not collected by the defendant and was returned to the Court marked 'nicht abgeholt' (unclaimed). The Court applied Rule 271.6(b) RoP and deemed the statement of claim to have been served on 14 March 2025, ordering Defendant 4 to file its statement of defence by 16 June 2025.
Headwater Research LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, Headwater Research LLC, for separation of proceedings under Rule 303(2) of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action against five defendants, including Motorola entities, Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Flextronics International Europe B.V. The plaintiff sought to separate the case against the fifth defendant (Flextronics) into its own proceeding and to avoid paying an additional court fee for the separated case. The fifth defendant opposed the application, arguing that the delay was caused by the plaintiff's own insufficient pre-filing investigations.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The court addressed the question of whether service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) via registered letter that was not collected by the addressee should be deemed valid. Applying Rule 271.6.b of the Rules of Procedure, the presiding judge deemed service on Defendant 4 to have been completed on 14 March 2025 and ordered the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the continuation of the written procedure in a patent infringement action involving EP 4 108 782. The claimants (10x Genomics and Harvard) had initially filed 55 auxiliary requests, which were later reduced to 4 in a revised application to amend the patent submitted on 9 April 2025. The panel held that 4 auxiliary requests is indisputably a reasonable number under Rule 30.1(c) RoP, and ordered continuation of the written procedure given the proceedings had already lasted nearly two years and an oral hearing date had already been agreed.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses the withdrawal of various applications filed in the course of infringement proceedings. After third party Erik Krahbichler withdrew his application for access to the file, defendants Meril filed applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. Following guidance from the judge-rapporteur referencing a similar order from the Central Division Paris Seat, Meril withdrew these applications, and the court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech SE, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant Promosome LLC proposed significantly lower amounts. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly, rejecting the request for a default decision as premature.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v.Respondent
Procedural order concerning European Patent No. 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. Following a third party's (Erik Krahbichler) withdrawal of his application for access to the file, the defendant Meril Life Sciences withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. The Presiding Judge permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential.
Pfizer AB , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) sought security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant (Promosome LLC) proposed a lower amount. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly while rejecting the request for a default decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against three Meril entities (based in Germany, India, and Italy) before the Local Division Munich, alleging that Meril's 'Myval' transcatheter heart valve and 'Navigator' delivery device infringed EP 3 669 828 B2 ('Prosthetic Heart Valve'). Meril contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, while Edwards sought to amend the patent. The Court rejected Meril's preliminary objections on jurisdiction, upheld the patent as amended, found infringement, and ordered cease-and-desist, recall, destruction, disclosure, publication, and provisional damages of EUR 663,000.
Pfizer AB , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. v.Promosome LLC
In a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 before the Local Division Munich, the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested under Rule 190 RoP that the Claimant Promosome LLC produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in the proceedings. The Court rejected the request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, finding that the Defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of their defences, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested and the facts they sought to prove.
BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech SE, BioNTech Europe GmbH , BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH v.Promosome LLC
This case concerns a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) filed an application under Rule 190 RoP seeking to compel the claimant Promosome LLC to produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in support of its infringement claims. The court rejected the defendants' request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, holding that the defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of any defense, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested.
Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S, Ascendis Pharma A/S v.BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning a preliminary objection filed by Ascendis Pharma in an infringement action brought by BioMarin Pharmaceutical regarding European patent 3 175 863 (Variants of C-Type Natriuretic Peptide). Ascendis challenged the validity of BioMarin's withdrawal of opt-out and argued that BioMarin failed to establish the court's competence by not sufficiently alleging infringing acts. The presiding judge rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, finding the opt-out withdrawal valid and that BioMarin had sufficiently shown actual and threatened infringement occurring in Germany.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France s.a.i. v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich concerning two related infringement actions (UPC_CFI_54/2024 and UPC_CFI_396/2024) involving European patent EP 2 391 947. Samsung, with Headwater's consent, requested an extension of the deadline to file comments on three pending applications, and the Presiding Judge granted the extension from 3 April 2025 to 8 April 2025, closing the four associated workflows.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerned an application for interim measures filed by MANN+HUMMEL GmbH against SOTRAS - S.R.L. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 762 219. Before any decision on the merits was rendered, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the claimant withdrew its application with the defendant's consent. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, ordered the decision to be entered in the register, and addressed the question of court fee reimbursement.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
1. Rule 30 RoP does not restrict the patentee in its request to amend the patent to the requirement that the application and the corresponding auxiliary requests must be directly related to the
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This cost-setting proceeding arose from a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, in which the plaintiff MSG Maschinenbau GmbH sued defendant EJP Maschinen GmbH. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in its entirety, MSG withdrew the main infringement claim, and the court ordered MSG to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. EJP filed an application seeking reimbursement of €20,797.00 in costs for the infringement proceedings, and the court assessed the reasonableness and proportionality of the claimed cost items under Article 69 of the UPC Agreement and Rules 150–152 of the Rules of Procedure.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) by the Local Chamber Munich concerning the reimbursement of costs arising from prior infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal fully revoked the patent, the plaintiff (MSG Maschinenbau GmbH) withdrew its infringement action, and the court ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of both the infringement proceedings and the revocation counterclaim proceedings, each with a value in dispute of €500,000. The defendant (EJP Maschinen GmbH) filed an application seeking reimbursement of its costs, including €20,797.00 for the infringement proceedings.
Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_146/2024) involving Sanofi entities as claimants and STADA entities as defendants regarding European patent EP 2 493 466. Medac had uploaded a privileged and confidential letter from Sanofi as 'Exhibit 2' in unredacted form, prompting objections from Sanofi. The court permitted the withdrawal of the application and the exhibit, ordered Medac to bear the costs of removing the exhibit from the CMS, imposed a recurring penalty for any future use of the document, and issued a warning to Medac's representative for negligent breach of the Code of Conduct.
Chint Solar Netherlands B.V. , Astronergy Europe GmbH , Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH , Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
With regard to a country that fails to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention, it has to be assumed that an order for reimbursement of costs by the UPC may not be enforceable in this country or just in an unduly burdensome way. Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_425/2024 ACT_42211/2024 App_54919/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS) 1. Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., NO.1 Jisheng Road, Jianshan New Zone, 314415 Haining City, Zhejiang
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
This case concerns a rectification of a scheduling order in an infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court identified a typographical error in Item 4 of the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025 and ordered its correction to accurately reflect the oral hearing arrangements. The corrected Item 4 specifies that the oral hearing is scheduled for 15 January 2026 at 9:00 a.m., to be held in person in Munich.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. ao
This is a procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities concerning European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court scheduled the proceedings, setting dates for the written procedure, interim conference, and oral hearing, and confirmed that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation would proceed together with the parties' consent.
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.