Munich (DE) Local Division
325 cases · page 7 of 11
Showing 181–209SnowPixie Co., Ltd. v.Unnamed (Verletzungsklägerin)
This UPC decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning the provision of security for legal costs in an infringement case. The court found that while the respondent (the defendant) faced financial strain, evidenced by an operating loss, they were still capable of providing the required security deposit. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to furnish €62,600.00 in security, rejecting the claimant's initial demand for a much higher sum.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision from the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) concerns a procedural application filed by a patent attorney seeking public access to case documents. The court granted this request, specifically allowing viewing of materials related to the counterclaim for revocation (CC_581177/2023). This ruling highlights the UPC's commitment to transparency while maintaining strict boundaries regarding which files are accessible.
Sanofi SA (and various Sanofi entities) v.Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
In a procedural order concerning multiple infringement actions, the UPC Local Division Munich set key dates for the litigation between Sanofi and Zentiva. The court scheduled an Interim Conference via videoconference on July 17, 2025, followed by in-person oral hearings from October 14 to 17, 2025. This decision moves the complex pharmaceutical patent dispute closer to a substantive hearing, allowing both parties time to prepare their arguments and counterclaims.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC decision is a procedural order issued by the Local Division of Munich in an infringement case involving Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz GmbH regarding EP patent 3 215 288. The court addressed scheduling conflicts, rescheduling the interim hearing to May 28, 2025, and confirming the oral hearing for July 1, 2025. This order sets clear procedural timelines, including a deadline of May 14, 2025, for written submissions.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics addresses several key motions, including claim amendments and confidentiality. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, a crucial step allowing the claimant to adapt its legal strategy based on the defendant's recent submissions. While other requests were dismissed, this decision keeps the infringement and revocation proceedings alive as they move toward an Interim Conference.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed the procedural consequences of withdrawing counterclaims for both patent revocation and a FRAND license offer. The Court permitted the withdrawals, declaring the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling clarified that even though a FRAND license offer counterclaim is related to the main infringement action, it constitutes an independent proceeding requiring court fees, thereby preventing a full refund upon withdrawal.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed procedural applications related to costs and confidentiality in a case involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether the proceedings concerning confidential information should be stayed pending an appeal decision. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the request for a partial stay of cost proceedings, which triggered the closure of the related workflow regarding confidentiality.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural matters, specifically an application for a cost decision and related requests for confidentiality protection. The Court has signaled its intent to grant Meril unlimited access to the costs proceedings while ensuring that restrictions under Rule 262.2 RoP prevent disclosure of confidential information to third parties or the public. This ruling highlights the delicate balance UPC courts must strike between transparency in litigation and protecting sensitive commercial data.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural matters within a larger infringement action concerning EP 3 646 825. The court lifted all existing deadlines related to the cost decision and confidentiality protection applications, following arguments from the defendants regarding the impossibility of compliance under provisional protective measures. This ruling is significant as it provides necessary procedural relief, ensuring that parties can properly engage in ancillary proceedings without being unduly constrained by conflicting interim orders.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 3 646 825, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed Meril's request for a partial stay of proceedings related to cost decisions and confidential information. Despite arguments from both sides regarding the need for a tailored suspension, the Court ultimately dismissed Meril's application. The decision underscores the strict interpretation of procedural rules within the UPC framework.
Sanofi SA (and associated Sanofi entities) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. (and associated Accord Healthcare entities, STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France)
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addresses multiple infringement actions involving Sanofi and various generic competitors, including Accord Healthcare and Stada. The court did not rule on the merits but instead focused heavily on case management, setting specific financial values for both the claims and counterclaims. Sanofi was immediately tasked with correcting significant deficiencies in its formal submissions regarding jurisdiction and scope of the claims, highlighting the strict procedural requirements within the UPC.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge concerning service of a default judgment in provisional measures proceedings involving a defendant domiciled in China. After extensive attempts at formal service via the Chinese competent authority failed due to delays and eventual refusal, the Court ruled that good service could be established through an alternative method. By publishing the decision on the UPC website and notifying the defendant by email, the Court ensured the principle of effective legal protection was upheld, allowing the default judgment to proceed.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application filed by the defendants (XSYS group) seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, consented to this change. The Court granted the request, establishing English as the official language for the main infringement action (No. ACT_46804/2024). This ruling highlights the importance of party agreement in determining procedural parameters within the UPC.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural hurdle in cross-border litigation: establishing good service when traditional methods fail. The applicant sought provisional measures against a defendant domiciled in China. After formal attempts via the Hague Service Convention stalled due to inaction by Chinese authorities, the Court ruled that publication of the default judgment on its website, combined with email notification, satisfied the principle of effective legal protection and constituted valid service. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners dealing with defendants in jurisdictions where judicial cooperation is slow or non-existent. It reinforces the UPC's commitment to ensuring substantive justice over strict adherence to procedural formalities.
Sanofi Mature IP / Sanofi SA v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order addresses a corporate restructuring within the Sanofi group, specifically concerning the patent ownership of EP 2 493 466. The UPC Court accepted the request to substitute the original claimant, Sanofi Mature IP, with its successor entity, Sanofi SA. This decision ensures that the ongoing infringement actions and related counterclaims continue seamlessly under the new legal proprietor. For practitioners, this highlights the UPC's flexibility in accommodating complex corporate changes without disrupting active litigation.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Commuincation Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
In this UPC case, NEC Corporation initiated a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning EP 3 057 321. Before the written procedure concluded, the Claimant voluntarily withdrew the suit due to a contractual agreement reached with the Defendants. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed. Crucially, the court ruled that the claimant was entitled to a significant reimbursement of court fees (60%), setting a clear precedent for cost recovery in voluntary withdrawals.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Commuincation Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
In this UPC decision, NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its patent infringement action against several TCL entities before a final judgment was rendered. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling confirmed that even upon voluntary withdrawal, specific rules apply regarding court fee reimbursement, granting NEC 60% of the fees paid.
BF exaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving NVIDIA and two German claimants (BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG). The defendants sought to change the court language from German to English, matching the patent grant language. However, the Court ultimately dismissed this request. The ruling emphasizes that while convenience for large corporations is a factor, the principle of ensuring fair access to justice for medium-sized enterprises must take precedence when weighing the interests of the parties.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed both Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom (and affiliates) to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims regarding EP 4 087 195. The withdrawal was permitted because neither party demonstrated a legitimate interest in forcing the continuation of the litigation. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to terminate complex patent disputes by mutual consent, provided no vested interests are at stake.
Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U.
This Procedural Order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses complex issues of confidentiality and evidence access across several parallel infringement actions involving Sanofi (Claimant) and Accord Healthcare (Respondent). The core dispute revolved around how a key witness statement (Exhibit No. D.4), containing sensitive commercial data, should be handled by the Court. The Judge issued detailed instructions to balance the need for full disclosure in litigation against the protection of trade secrets.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This decision addresses the complex issue of managing a large number of auxiliary requests filed by Claimant 2 (Harvard College) in an application to amend a patent, while parallel opposition proceedings are ongoing at the EPO. The Court recognized that given the extensive validity attacks, limiting the amendments strictly is not feasible under the principle of fairness. Consequently, the proceedings were stayed pending the EPO's decision, and Harvard was instructed to consolidate its requests for submission shortly thereafter.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to withdraw its infringement claim against Netgear and permitted Netgear to withdraw their revocation counterclaims regarding EP 3 611 989. The court confirmed that withdrawal was permissible because the prior decision had not yet attained legal force. This case highlights how parties can resolve complex UPC litigation through mutual agreement, leading to a procedural dismissal of the actions.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH; Netgear Inc.; Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to withdraw its infringement claim against Netgear and simultaneously accepted the withdrawal of Netgear's counterclaim for revocation. This decision reflects a common strategic resolution in complex patent litigation, where parties opt to terminate proceedings rather than proceed to a full trial. The court formalized the termination while granting a partial refund of court fees.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
In this UPC case, Netgear Deutschland GmbH and its affiliates successfully withdrew their infringement action against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The withdrawal was based on an agreement between the parties, leading to the termination of the proceedings. Although the core dispute was settled out of court, the claimant secured a partial refund of 40% of the paid court fees from the UPC.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a cost determination proceeding initiated by Edwards Lifesciences against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. While the court found that the respondents were liable for the procedural costs totaling EUR 244,000 (including amounts agreed upon in earlier proceedings), it definitively rejected the claimant's request to have these costs paid with interest. The ruling clarifies a critical distinction within UPC procedure: while damages claims may include compensation for time value of money, standard cost reimbursement does not automatically carry an interest component unless explicitly provided by law.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
In a significant decision by default, the UPC Local Division Munich granted an injunction in favor of air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. The case involved patent EP 3 655 341, which covers a specialized drinking device designed for retronasal aroma reception. Since the defendant failed to respond to the service of the application, the court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering an immediate cease-and-desist order across all UPC Member States.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
In a decision by default, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a preliminary injunction in favor of air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. The case concerned infringement of EP 3 897 305, which protects an innovative drinking device designed for retronasal aroma reception. Since the defendant failed to respond to the application, the court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering a cease and desist across all UPC Member States.
Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U.
In a key procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a complex corporate restructuring involving Sanofi. The court formally approved the substitution of Sanofi-Aventis France with its successor entity, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, in multiple ongoing infringement actions. This decision validates the principle that rights and obligations transfer seamlessly through mergers under UPC rules. It allows the substantive patent litigation to proceed without interruption despite significant changes in the claimant's corporate structure.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Limited initiated an infringement action against SharkNinja Europe and Germany concerning EP patent 2 043 492. In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Munich granted a suspension of both the main infringement proceedings and the associated counterclaim. This decision reflects a strategic pause agreed upon by both parties, allowing time for further negotiation or legal strategy before the merits of the case are addressed.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC decision concerns the withdrawal of a counterclaim for invalidity filed by Tesla against Avago Technologies regarding EP 1 770 912. The court granted the request to withdraw, finding that since the action had not reached a final judgment and no legitimate interest was asserted by the claimant, the withdrawal was permissible under UPC Rules. Consequently, the entire proceeding was terminated.
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.