Munich (DE) Local Division
325 cases · page 6 of 11
Showing 151–179Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order from the Munich Local Division addresses complex issues arising in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 215 288. The court corrected an earlier decision regarding party substitution in the counterclaim and deferred a ruling on an application to bar proceedings (RoP362). By reserving the decision until after the main hearing, the UPC ensures that procedural rulings do not disrupt the planned unified trial schedule for both infringement and validity issues.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order addresses complex issues within a UPC infringement and revocation counterclaim case involving Heraeus and Vibrantz regarding EP 3 215 288. The court corrected previous orders concerning party substitution in the revocation proceedings. Crucially, the court deferred a decision on an application to bar the action based on prior national decisions until after the main hearing, prioritizing the smooth conduct of the overall trial.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a dispute over the refund percentage for court fees following the withdrawal of patent infringement claims. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought an increase from 40% to 60%, arguing that they were not properly informed about the conclusion of written proceedings. The Court upheld the initial ruling, emphasizing that despite the complexity of the case, the established framework for fee refunds was maintained. This decision reinforces the court's discretion under Rule 370.9(e) EPGVerfO to limit refunds in cases where the judicial effort expended is deemed substantial.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the scope of fee refunds when patent litigation is withdrawn. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought a 60% refund of court costs after settling its infringement case against OPPO and OROPE, arguing the complexity warranted an 'exceptional' status under Rule 370.9(e). However, the Local Division upheld the initial ruling, limiting the refund to 40%. The judgment emphasizes that while complex cases generate high workloads, this factor alone is insufficient to override the general principle of proportional fee recovery based on the stage of proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, Panasonic Holdings Corporation challenged a lower court's ruling regarding the percentage of court fee refunds after withdrawing its infringement claims against Xiaomi and OPPO. Panasonic sought an increase from 40% to 60%, arguing that procedural timing was unclear. However, the Local Division upheld the original 40% refund, emphasizing that while the case was complex, the statutory rules governing fee reduction based on withdrawal timing must be strictly applied.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
In this UPC costs case (UPC_CFI_2/2023), the court addressed procedural issues surrounding cost allocation following a summary proceeding on interim measures. The claimants successfully argued for the reimbursement of substantial legal fees (€337,431.50). Crucially, the decision established clear rules regarding the finality of costs determined in summary proceedings and reinforced strict adherence to filing deadlines under Rule 151 EPGVerfO. This ruling provides important guidance on how cost claims must be structured and pursued within the UPC framework.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This procedural order in the UPC case between Hand Held Products and Scandit AG confirms the upcoming oral hearing date for infringement proceedings related to EP 3 866 051. The court addressed several key procedural issues, including allowing a partial withdrawal of claims and setting the financial value of the entire dispute at €7.5 million. While no substantive ruling was made on infringement or revocation, the order provides clear guidelines on evidence presentation (e.g., use of PowerPoint) and the handling of delayed submissions.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
This UPC decision confirms a settlement between Dyson Technology Limited and SharkNinja. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims—the infringement action by Dyson and the revocation counterclaim by SharkNinja. The court accepted this agreement, terminating both proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can efficiently resolve complex patent disputes within the UPC framework.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
In a procedural ruling within the UPC Local Division, the court addressed Chainzone Technology's request for access to case files related to EP2643717. Despite initial delays and considerations regarding ongoing proceedings, the court ultimately granted the requested file access. This decision underscores the importance of transparency in UPC proceedings, even when preliminary measures like evidence preservation are involved.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich terminated both an infringement action brought by Dyson Technology Limited and a counterclaim for patent invalidity filed by SharkNinja. The termination was based on a mutual agreement between the parties to withdraw all claims in both proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can lead to swift procedural closure within the UPC framework.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd
This UPC decision addressed an application for provisional measures (Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction) filed by Nokia against Sunmi Technology in the context of a dispute involving standard essential patents (SEPs). The court provided detailed legal guidance on when infringement is threatened and how Anti-Suit Injunctions are treated under the UPC framework. While the specific request for injunction was ultimately dismissed, the ruling offers significant clarity to practitioners regarding the threshold for provisional measures and the nature of rights violations in complex cross-border disputes.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
In this UPC case, SWARCO FUTURIT sought evidence preservation regarding alleged patent infringement by Yunex GmbH concerning specialized collection optics used in LED display panels. The court ultimately dismissed the application because of procedural actions taken by the respondent, making further investigation unnecessary. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements within the UPC framework for preliminary measures like evidence preservation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
This UPC order addresses procedural rectifications requested by Meril GmbH in the infringement case concerning Edwards Lifesciences' heart valve patent (EP 3 646 825). The defendants sought corrections to technical descriptions, jurisdictional statements, and references to prior art/expert opinions within the original decision. The court accepted several of these amendments, ensuring accuracy in the record while maintaining the ongoing nature of the dispute.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Eurobio Scientific
In this UPC case, GXD-Bio Corporation sued Myriad Genetics and others for alleged infringement of EP 3 346 403. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence to hear claims related to acts predating the claimant's registration as proprietor. The Judge-rapporteur rejected this objection, affirming the UPC's subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement actions. This ruling clarifies that standing issues are matters of merit and not grounds for excluding the case at the preliminary stage.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH
This UPC case focused on procedural jurisdiction and admissibility rather than the merits of infringement. The claimant, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, filed an infringement suit in Munich against S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International and Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH regarding patent EP 3 685 783. The respondents argued that the case was inadmissible because a similar action was pending elsewhere under Article 33(2) EPC. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, confirming Munich's jurisdiction by clarifying that an appeal does not constitute a 'case pending before another local chamber.'
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
Syngenta Limited initiated an infringement action against Sumi Agro entities concerning European patent EP 2 152 073, which relates to crop protection technology. The Court of First Instance in Munich issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the case. Both parties are summoned to participate in the Interim Conference and the subsequent Oral Hearing, where the core issues of infringement and potential revocation will be debated.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
BSN Medical GmbH initiated infringement proceedings against Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V. concerning European patents EP 3 831 350 and EP 3 033 058. Rather than proceeding to a full trial, the parties successfully reached an out-of-court settlement agreement. The UPC court confirmed this agreement, ensuring that the sensitive terms of the settlement remain confidential, providing a clear example of how settlements are formalized within the unified patent system.
SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a cost assessment application filed by SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH against Tiroler Rohre GmbH following the withdrawal of an interim measures request. The court found the claim admissible and granted the recovery of costs for the first instance, totaling 84,033.76 EUR. While the respondent argued that the fees were excessive, the court allowed minor reductions based on specific objections but ultimately upheld the majority of the claimed expenses.
SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This UPC decision concerns a cost assessment application following the withdrawal of an interim measure request. The court found the claim admissible and necessary, establishing that costs incurred by the claimant were recoverable. Although the respondent successfully argued for reductions in specific time entries due to lack of plausibility, the overall reimbursement amount was significantly upheld.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case, the respondents challenged the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringement acts that occurred before the UPC Agreement came into force. The court decisively rejected this objection, affirming its competence to hear claims concerning pre-UPC period activities. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the temporal scope of the UPC's jurisdiction, providing certainty for claimants pursuing historical infringement claims.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this preliminary objection case, the UPC addressed a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding whether its authority extends to alleged patent infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA came into force. The Court decisively rejected the Defendants' argument that international treaty principles (VCLT) limited jurisdiction only to post-entry-into-force actions. This ruling confirms the broad scope of the UPC's competence in handling historical infringement claims, provided they fall under its jurisdictional basis.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This procedural order in the UPC addressed a request by Ericsson (Defendants) to classify certain information related to pre-dispute license negotiations as confidential under R. 262A RoP. Ericsson sought protection for internal calculations and negotiation details, arguing they were highly confidential business secrets. The Court ultimately rejected this application entirely, emphasizing that parties cannot restrict their own access to their proprietary information during proceedings.
Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
This UPC decision addressed a preliminary objection raised by the defendant against a second counterclaim for revocation. The Court held that Art. 33 (2) UPCA requires an expansive interpretation of lis pendens, applying not only across different divisions but also within the same division. As the patent's validity was already subject to prior proceedings in the same court, the second counterclaim was rejected as inadmissible.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation initiated an infringement action against Meril GmbH and its affiliates concerning European patent EP 3669828. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a procedural order scheduling the case for an oral hearing on February 11, 2025. This initial step moves the complex dispute from filing to active litigation in Munich. This case is significant as it involves major players in the medical device industry utilizing the UPC framework.
Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed jurisdictional issues concerning multiple actions on the same patent. The court held that if an action for revocation is already pending between the same parties in the same division, a subsequent counterclaim for revocation must be rejected as inadmissible (lis pendens). This decision clarifies the scope of Article 33(2) UPCA, preventing duplicative litigation and ensuring procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request from Disney to extend deadlines for filing its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation in an infringement action. The court granted the extension based on the agreement reached between the parties, acknowledging the complexities arising from parallel litigation and counsel's travel schedules. This case highlights how procedural flexibility is utilized within the UPC framework to ensure fair process while managing complex international disputes.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd.
Qualcomm Incorporated initiated a patent infringement action against several mobile technology companies, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd. However, before any substantive decision was reached, Qualcomm filed a request to withdraw the suit due to reaching a settlement with Defendant 1. The UPC Local Division Munich permitted this withdrawal, declaring the proceedings closed. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding voluntary withdrawal and clarifies the rules governing court fee reimbursement in such scenarios.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek Computer Inc.
In this UPC case involving Lenovo against ASUSTEK entities, the Local Division issued an order consolidating the proceedings. The court decided to hear both the infringement claim brought by Lenovo and the counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 682 587 together. This procedural step is significant as it streamlines the litigation process, allowing the validity of the patent to be assessed concurrently with its alleged infringement.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
In this UPC decision regarding provisional measures, the court addressed a request for security deposit to cover legal costs in an infringement proceeding. Although the claimant cited negative credit ratings and operating losses of the respondent, the court ultimately granted a reduced security order of €62,600.00. This ruling highlights the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness with financial risk management, demonstrating that economic hardship alone does not automatically preclude the requirement for security.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Lenovo initiated infringement proceedings against ASUSTek and its subsidiaries before the UPC Local Division in Munich regarding EP patent 3 682 587. The court issued a procedural order setting out the next steps in the litigation. Key dates were established for an interim video conference hearing (September 2025) and the main oral proceedings (November 2025). This case highlights the structured, multi-stage nature of UPC infringement actions.
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.