322 cases · page 6 of 11
Showing 151–179Roku International B.V., Roku Inc. v.Sun Patent Trust
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an objection (Einspruch) filed by the defendants under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure against a patent infringement action based on European Patent EP 2 903 267. The court addressed four key preliminary issues: whether alleged incompatibility of the UPC Agreement with EU primary law constitutes a ground for objection, whether violations of the EU Charter or ECHR can support such an objection, whether the plaintiff must proactively prove its representative's authority regarding the opt-out withdrawal, and the standard for establishing jurisdiction. The court ruled against the defendants on all four points, finding that the objection should be rejected.
Roku Inc, Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB
This procedural order concerns an objection filed by Roku under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure against a patent infringement action brought by Dolby International AB concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258. The defendants argued that the legal framework of the Unified Patent Court is incompatible with EU primary law (TFEU and TEU) and that Art. 267 TFEU is violated, also raising alleged breaches of Art. 47(2) of the EU Charter and Art. 6(1) ECHR. The court rejected these arguments, holding that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a ground for objection under Rule 19(1), and that such an objection cannot be successfully based on violations of the EU Charter or ECHR.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning two consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 866 051. Both parties jointly requested leave to withdraw the main action and counterclaim without a cost decision, and the defendant additionally sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, cancelled the oral hearing, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of the counterclaim court fee to the defendant because the interim proceedings had not yet concluded at the time of withdrawal.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 646 825, the Local Division Munich addressed competing applications for protection of confidential information filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril in connection with Edwards' cost application. The court distinguished between Rule 262A RoP (restriction of access vis-à-vis parties) and Rule 262.2 RoP (restriction of access vis-à-vis the public and third parties), ultimately granting Edwards protection under Rule 262.2 RoP while rejecting the Rule 262A RoP requests of both parties.
Syngenta Limited v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Sumi Agro to revoke provisional measures previously granted in favor of Syngenta Limited regarding European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centered on whether Syngenta had timely 'started proceedings on the merits' within the deadline set under Rule 213.1 RoP, given that the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024 but the court fee was received on 30 September 2024. The Local Division Munich upheld the judge-rapporteur's dismissal of Sumi Agro's application, finding that Syngenta had started proceedings in due time, and granted leave to appeal.
BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , Pfizer AB , BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH , Pfizer, Inc. , BioNTech SE v.Promosome LLC
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The Court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, 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.Respondent
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, Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns two consolidated proceedings involving Heraeus Electronics and Heraeus Precious Metals as plaintiffs against Vibrantz GmbH regarding alleged infringement of European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation) in Germany, Italy, and France. The order addresses the correction of a prior order from December 2, 2024 regarding the replacement of the counter-defendant in the revocation counterclaim proceedings, and considers an application under Rule 362 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the German part of the patent. Vibrantz had raised objections regarding the timeliness and standing of the replacement request.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the review of the amount of court fee reimbursement following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions and counterclaims after an out-of-court settlement. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees, but the presiding judge as rapporteur had granted only 40%, reasoning that the withdrawals occurred after the completion of the written procedure. Panasonic argued that the parties had not been informed of the completion of the written procedure before withdrawing. The panel confirmed the rapporteur's orders, maintaining the 40% reimbursement.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerned a fee refund dispute following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and counterclaims after an out-of-court settlement. The parties requested a 60% refund of court fees, but the presiding judge initially granted only 40% under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff sought review to obtain the higher 60% refund, and the defendants joined this request. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the 40% refund, holding that the complex and intensively pursued nature of the dispute constituted an exceptional case under Rule 370.9(e).
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This decision concerns the assessment of costs for first instance and appeal proceedings in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Munich. The applicants (Bruker Spatial Biology, Luxendo GmbH, and Bruker Nederland B.V.) sought cost assessment of €337,431.50 against the respondents (10x Genomics, Inc. and NanoString Technologies Inc.) following the Court of Appeal's rejection of the respondents' application for interim measures. The court addressed key procedural questions regarding the admissibility of cost assessment applications after summary proceedings, the nature of cost orders in interim measure proceedings, and the binding effect of the one-month deadline under Rule 151.
Scandit AG v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 866 051. The order addresses case management matters following an interim hearing held on February 21, 2025, including the valuation of the infringement claim and counterclaim, procedural questions regarding late submissions, and scheduling for further proceedings.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of the court file under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in a preliminary evidence preservation proceeding relating to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The patent holder SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. raised no objection, noting that Chainzone had already been admitted as an intervenor in related proceedings before the Local Chamber Vienna. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering that file inspection be provided subject to redaction of personal data to be identified by SWARCO within ten days.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a revocation counterclaim related to European Patent No. 2 043 492 before the Local Chamber Munich. Dyson Technology Limited sought leave to withdraw its infringement action, while SharkNinja sought leave to withdraw its revocation counterclaim, with both parties confirming they had reached an out-of-court settlement and waiving their respective claims. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared both proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to each side.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation related 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, waiving all asserted claims. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals and ordered that each party receive a 60 percent refund of the court fees for their respective actions.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order in evidence preservation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717, owned by SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. SWARCO alleged that Yunex GmbH had installed patent-infringing collective optics manufactured by Shenzhen Dianming Tech Co., Ltd in LED display panels deployed in the city of Mönchengladbach. The order addressed the procedural question of how to handle the mootness (Erledigung) of an evidence preservation application, holding that Rules 360 and 198.1 of the Rules of Procedure apply analogously, and reserving the cost decision to the main proceedings.
Nokia Technologies Oy ao v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd ao
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on February 19, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patents EP 2 243 229 and EP 3 799 333, following an oral hearing on February 18, 2025. The applicants, two Nokia group entities responsible for managing and licensing Nokia's patent portfolio, sought provisional measures against three Chinese respondents (Shanghai Sunmi Technology, Sunmi Technology (Yunnan), and Shangtian Technology (Shanghai)) ahead of the EuroCIS trade fair in Düsseldorf. The order establishes key legal principles regarding the imminence of patent infringement, particularly in the context of anti-suit injunctions, and addresses the conditions under which security for provisional measures may be exceptionally omitted.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
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 Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH
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.S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich ruled on a jurisdiction objection raised by the defendants in an infringement action concerning EP 3 685 783. The court held that the Munich chamber was competent to hear the infringement case, rejecting the defendants' argument under Article 33(2) EPGÜ that the Düsseldorf chamber should have jurisdiction. The court reasoned that at the time the infringement action was filed on November 20, 2024, no parallel action under Article 32(1)(a), (c), (f), (g) or (h) was pending before another first-instance chamber, since the prior interim measures application had already been appealed to the Court of Appeal.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts, erlassen am 10.02.2025 KLÄGERIN BSN Medical GmbH, Schützenstraße 1-3, 22761 Hamburg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Christian Stoll Hogan Lovells International LLP, Alstertor 2, 20095 Hamburg, Deutschla
XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Italia S.r.l. v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
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.
Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A., ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Division Munich addressed an objection by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that occurred before the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) entered into force and during the period of an opt-out. The court held that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA, Art. 2(g), and Art. 3(c) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on such pre-UPCA and opt-out period acts of use. The court further clarified that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate legal concepts that must be assessed independently of one another.
SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This case concerns a cost-setting decision by the Local Chamber Munich following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures. The applicants, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy, sought reimbursement of approximately €91,568.76 in costs from Tiroler Rohre GmbH, who had been ordered to bear the costs after withdrawing the interim measures application. The respondent argued the costs were excessive and requested a cap of €30,000, contending that the number of representatives and hours billed were disproportionate to the case's complexity.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
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.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich addressed a preliminary objection raised by Motorola Mobility LLC against a second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 filed by Ericsson. Motorola argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to lis pendens, as the validity of the same patent was already subject to prior proceedings between the same parties in the same court. The Judge-rapporteur allowed the preliminary objection, holding that Article 33(2) UPCA applies equally when the same parties bring duplicative actions on the same patent before the same division, and dismissed the second counterclaim as inadmissible without a separate costs decision.
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.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities regarding European Patent No. 2 793 430. The defendants jointly requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence with Counterclaim for Revocation to 11 March 2025. The Presiding Judge granted the request based on the parties' agreement and the minimal extension period involved.
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.