Munich (DE) Local Division
374 cases · page 6 of 13
Showing 151–179Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an Interim Conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 391 947. The order addresses various procedural matters including the value of the claim and counterclaim, parallel proceedings, formal pleading deficiencies, late-filed documents, and arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date of 20 May 2025 and set the value of the infringement claim at €2 million and the counterclaim for revocation at €3 million.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
The Claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 742 231 by adding the Netherlands to the list of countries for which infringement was asserted and an injunction sought. The court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation). The court corrected its prior order of December 2, 2024 to include in the operative part the replacement of the counter-defendant (Heraeus Precious Metals) with Heraeus Electronics in the nullity counterclaim proceedings. The court also deferred its decision on Heraeus's Rule 362 RoP application seeking to bar the nullity counterclaim regarding the German part of the patent based on alleged res judicata from a prior Federal Patent Court decision, ruling that a decision before the main hearing on July 1, 2025 would jeopardize the unified proceedings under Rule 363.2 RoP.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (relating to a metal sintering preparation). The court corrected an earlier order from December 2, 2024 to include in its operative part the replacement of the counter-defendant (Plaintiff 2) by Plaintiff 1 in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The court further decided to defer its decision on Heraeus's Rule 362 RoP application—which sought to bar the revocation counterclaim regarding the German part of the patent on res judicata grounds—until after the main hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned a request by Panasonic Holdings Corporation to review the amount of court fee reimbursement following the withdrawal of its patent infringement actions against Xiaomi and OPPO entities. After an out-of-court settlement in late 2024, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims, and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge had granted only 40%, and the panel confirmed this decision, finding that the exceptionally complex nature of the dispute justified the reduced reimbursement under Rule 370.9(e).
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed patent infringement actions against Xiaomi and OPPO entities before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 024 163. After an out-of-court settlement at the end of 2024, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The rapporteur granted only 40%, and Panasonic sought review under Rule 333 EPGVerfO. The panel confirmed the 40% reimbursement, finding the case an extraordinary one under Rule 370.9(e) due to its exceptional complexity and the court's above-average workload.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Following an out-of-court settlement, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims concerning European Patent 2 197 132 and jointly requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the reporting judge's earlier order granting only a 40% reimbursement, holding that the exceptionally complex and intensively litigated nature of the dispute constituted an 'exceptional case' under Rule 370.9(e) EPGVerfO justifying a reduced fee refund.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., Luxendo GmbH, Bruker Nederland B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., NanoString Technologies Inc. (Kostenfestsetzung)
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings UPC_CFI_2/2023. The applicants (Bruker entities) sought cost assessment of €337,431.50 following the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the respondents' (10x Genomics and NanoString) application for interim measures. The court held that cost assessment proceedings are admissible following interim measures proceedings where the Court of Appeal has made a cost decision under Rule 242.1 EPGVerfO, and ordered the respondents to pay the assessed costs.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024) concerning European Patent No. 3 866 051. The order addresses case management matters following an interim hearing, including the value of the infringement claim and counterclaim, partial withdrawal of claims, deadlines for submissions, and confirmation of the oral hearing date.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. – Request for Inspection of Files (UPC_CFI_156/2024) v.Ex Parte
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of files under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in evidence preservation proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The court granted Chainzone's request for file inspection, finding no reasons to deny access, and allowed SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. ten days to identify any personal data to be redacted under data protection regulations.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH (EP 2 043 492)
Procedural order of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an infringement action and a revocation counterclaim relating to European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both parties informed the court that they had reached an out-of-court settlement and consented to the withdrawal of their respective claims, with all parties waiving their asserted claims. The court permitted the withdrawals under Rule 370.9.b.i of the Rules of Procedure and ordered each party to receive 60% reimbursement of court fees.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both Dyson (plaintiff) and SharkNinja (defendant/counterclaimant) applied to withdraw their respective infringement action and revocation counterclaim after reaching an out-of-court settlement. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, noted the parties' waivers of claims, and ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
SWARCO FUTURIT, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 643 717 B1 concerning color and light mixing collective optics for LED display panels, filed an application for evidence preservation against Yunex GmbH, alleging that Yunex had installed infringing optics from Shenzhen Dianming Tech Co., Ltd in LED display panels in Mönchengladbach. The Local Chamber Munich held that the application had become moot due to Yunex's procedural behavior and dismissed it, while reserving the cost decision for the main proceedings.
Nokia Technologies Oy & Nokia Solutions and Network Oy v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd & Others
Nokia sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court to prevent Sunmi Group entities from seeking Anti-Suit Injunctions in China or elsewhere that would impede Nokia's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The court granted the interim measures, prohibiting the Sunmi respondents from filing or pursuing ASI proceedings, with penalties of up to €250,000 per day for violations, and ordered service at the EuroCIS trade fair in Düsseldorf without security.
Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Rectification of Decision)
This is a rectification order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent related to heart valve prostheses. Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (the defendants in the underlying infringement action) applied under Rule 353 RoP to rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, and obvious slips in the court's decision of 15 November 2024. The court granted several rectifications relating to factual inaccuracies on pages 13, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53, and 59 of the decision, while dismissing the remaining requests.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others
GXD-Bio Corporation sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 346 403 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants filed a preliminary objection arguing the court lacked competence to adjudicate claims for acts predating GXD-Bio's recordal as patent proprietor. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the defendants' arguments concerned standing and substantive ownership rather than jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and allowed an appeal.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
This is a scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. The order sets dates for the interim conference (6 October 2025) and the oral hearing (10 December 2025), and requests the assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendants' objection (Einspruch) challenging the admissibility of an infringement action concerning EP 3 685 783. The court held that the Munich chamber had jurisdiction because, at the time the infringement action was filed on November 20, 2024, the prior interim measures application between the same parties regarding the same patent was already pending before the Court of Appeal, not before another chamber of the Court of First Instance. The court further established that the action was deemed served on December 2, 2024.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
This is a decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Munich, concerning the confirmation of a settlement agreement and a confidentiality order. BSN Medical GmbH had sued the defendants for infringement of European patents EP 3 033 058 and EP 3 831 350, but the parties subsequently settled the dispute. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered that the details of the settlement be treated confidentially, and ruled that each party bears its own costs as agreed in the settlement.
SSAB Europe Oy & SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the reimbursement of costs following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures. The court ordered Tiroler Rohre GmbH to pay SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH €84,033.76 in costs, after reducing the claimed amount of €91,568.76 based on specific objections raised by the respondent regarding excessive hours billed.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that took place before the UPCA entered into force on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and subsequent opt-in. The court held that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on pre-entry-into-force acts of use. The defendants' auxiliary request for a stay and referral to the CJEU was also rejected, and appeal was allowed.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a procedural objection (R. 19.1(a) and R. 20.1 RoP) raised by the defendants against an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 602 692. The defendants argued that the court lacked temporal jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts occurring before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The presiding judge rejected the objection, holding that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA's entry into force and/or between an opt-out and its withdrawal.
SSAB Europe Oy & SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning reimbursement of costs following withdrawal of an application for interim measures. The applicants (SSAB entities) sought reimbursement of €91,568.76, while the respondent (Tiroler Rohre GmbH) argued the costs were excessive. The court partially upheld the applicants' claim, reducing certain time entries and ordering the respondent to pay €84,033.76 by March 15, 2025.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to classify certain information related to ongoing FRAND license negotiations as confidential and restrict its disclosure in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 780 758. Motorola Mobility LLC opposed the application, arguing that most of the information originated from its own parent group, Lenovo, and there was no justification for restricting a party's access to its own information. The Local Division Munich rejected the application in its entirety.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Motorola Mobility LLC against a second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 brought by Ericsson in proceedings before the Local Division Munich. The court allowed the preliminary objection, holding that a preliminary objection can be raised against a counterclaim for revocation, and that Article 33(2) UPCA applies to prevent the same parties from bringing the same validity dispute twice before the same division (lis pendens). The second counterclaim for revocation was rejected as inadmissible.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court on 5 February 2025 in an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation concerning European patent n° 3669828. The order summons the parties to an oral hearing scheduled for 11 February 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Munich, and provides standard procedural information regarding review, public access, audio recording, and consequences of absence.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
The Local Division Munich allowed a preliminary objection filed by Motorola Mobility LLC against a second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 brought by Ericsson. The court held that a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP can be raised against a counterclaim for revocation, and that Article 33(2) UPCA applies a fortiori when the same parties bring the same action twice before the same division, resulting in the second counterclaim being rejected as inadmissible due to lis pendens.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. & Others
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 793 430. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence with Counterclaim for Revocation to 11 March 2025, citing an agreement between the parties and the substantial workload of their legal counsels. The Presiding Judge granted the request, noting that the extension was only a maximum of one week and that the deadline for defendant 3 would be shortened.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd. et al.
Qualcomm Incorporated filed a patent infringement action on 17 July 2024 before the Local Division Munich against six defendants concerning European patent EP 2 286 325. After reaching a settlement with Defendant 1 (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings), Qualcomm withdrew the action on 17 January 2025 and applied for a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of €18,600.00 to the Claimant.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
An order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court on January 27, 2025, granting a third-party access request under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Patent attorney Christian Läufer of Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB sought access to the written submissions and evidence in the revocation counterclaim proceedings, citing a professional interest for learning and training purposes. Neither the plaintiff (Avago Technologies) nor the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) objected, and the presiding judge granted the request, limited to the revocation counterclaim workflow.
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.