Munich (DE) Local Division
374 cases · page 7 of 13
Showing 181–209Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an infringement action by Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. against three ASUSTek entities regarding European Patent No. 3 682 587. The defendants requested that the court decide on the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, and the court granted this request, also requesting the assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
SnowPixie Co., Ltd. (UPC_CFI_244/2024, UPC_CFI_786/2024) v.Ex Parte
In proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, the defendant in an infringement action sought security for costs of €257,000 against the plaintiff under Rule 158 EPGVerfO, citing the plaintiff's poor credit rating and operating losses. The plaintiff opposed the request and applied for legal aid. The court ordered reduced security of €62,600 and rejected the application for legal aid, finding that the plaintiff was capable of bearing its own costs and providing the ordered security.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, schedules an interim hearing via video conference for September 25, 2025, and an oral hearing in person for November 19, 2025, in Munich.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
This order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by Snowpixie Co., Ltd. (defendant in infringement proceedings) for Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH (plaintiff in infringement proceedings) to provide security for costs under Rule 158 EPGVerfO. The court found Golf Tech's financial situation sufficiently precarious—given its operating loss and lack of adequate assets—to justify ordering security, but reduced the amount to €62,600 after applying equity considerations. The court also rejected Golf Tech's application for legal aid, finding it capable of bearing its own costs and the ordered security.
Sanofi SA and Others v.Zentiva France and Others
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court scheduling an interim conference and oral hearing in consolidated infringement actions concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, and Zentiva, k.s. (among other defendants in related proceedings). The Presiding Judge set the interim conference for 17 July 2025 and the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the withdrawal of counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND-license offer filed by certain TCL defendants in a patent infringement action brought by NEC Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. Following a settlement and the conclusion of a patent licence agreement, the defendants withdrew both counterclaims and sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees for both counterclaims, and held that a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer is subject to court fees by analogous application of Rule 370 RoP.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947. The order addresses multiple applications including Samsung's filing on Headwater's standing to sue, Samsung's confidentiality application, and Headwater's applications for leave to amend its pleadings. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, dismissed Samsung's confidentiality application as superfluous, and set deadlines for further submissions and the Interim Conference.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The order reschedules the interim hearing from May 23, 2025 to May 28, 2025 due to a scheduling conflict, confirms the oral hearing date of July 1, 2025, and sets the end of the written procedure as May 14, 2025.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerns European patent EP 3 646 825. Meril (the defendant) sought a partial stay of proceedings regarding Edwards Lifesciences' cost decision application and an application for the protection of confidential information, pending a Court of Appeal decision. The presiding judge dismissed Meril's application, holding that Rule 295.d RoP does not provide for a partial stay and that no full stay was jointly requested by both parties.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 646 825, dealing with procedural applications following a prior infringement decision. Meril (the defendants) sought an extension of the deadline to comment on Edwards Lifesciences' application for a cost decision, arguing that pending confidentiality issues prevented them from properly responding. The judge-rapporteur lifted all deadlines relating to the cost decision and the protection of confidential information, with new deadlines to be set in due course.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses procedural matters related to Edwards's application for a cost decision and competing confidentiality applications under Rule 262A RoP. The court indicated its intention to follow the reasoning of the Central Division (Paris Seat) order of 30 July 2024, which would grant Meril unlimited access to the costs application while restricting third-party/public access under Rule 262.2 RoP. Edwards was invited to comment within 10 days on the confidentiality applications before the court would invite Meril to comment on the costs application.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 3 646 825, Meril sought a partial stay of proceedings relating to Edwards Lifesciences' cost decision application and a stay of the confidentiality information application, pending a Court of Appeal decision. The judge-rapporteur indicated willingness to order a full stay if both parties agreed, but neither party requested one. Meril then informed the court that its confidentiality stay application would not be maintained if a full or partial stay of the costs proceedings was not granted, rendering a decision on that application unnecessary.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare AB and other Accord entities; STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities; Reddy Pharma SAS and other Reddy entities; Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued on 22 January 2025, consolidating four parallel patent infringement actions (UPC_CFI_145/2024 through UPC_CFI_148/2024) brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The defendants raised preliminary objections concerning jurisdiction, standing of certain claimants, and the scope of the claims. Following a preliminary interim conference, the court ordered Sanofi to remedy deficiencies in its formal submissions within 7 days, invited defendants to comment within 14 days, waived all other deadlines, and set the values of the infringement claims and counterclaims.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned the service of a decision by default in provisional measures proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention as the Chinese authority failed to process service for over six months. The court held that publication of the decision by default on the Court's website, with notification to the defendant by email, constitutes good service under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned the service of a decision by default in provisional measures proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Chinese authorities under the Hague Service Convention, which failed to process service for over six months. The court held that publication of the decision by default on the Court's website, with notification to the defendant by email, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l. v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3742231 filed a procedural application requesting that the language of the proceedings be changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, consented to the requested change and agreed that no translations of previously submitted pleadings were required. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the language of proceedings changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. Before a final decision was issued, the parties reached a contractual settlement and NEC declared withdrawal of the action. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by NEC.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714 before the Local Division Munich. Before the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached a contractual agreement, and NEC declared withdrawal of the action. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by NEC.
Sanofi Mature IP & Others v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. & Others (UPC_CFI_145/2024 and related cases)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning four related patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants, a group of Sanofi entities, sought substitution of Sanofi Mature IP by Sanofi SA following a corporate reorganization in which Sanofi Mature IP was dissolved without liquidation and its assets, including the patent in suit, were universally transferred to Sanofi SA. The defendants raised no objections at the preliminary interim conference, and the Court granted the substitution, holding that it had no consequence on the proceedings under Rules 306 and 310 RoP.
NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG
NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patents at issue (EP3743812 and EP2628080) were granted. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, finding that while English is the common language in the relevant field of computer technology, the balancing of interests favored maintaining German as the language of proceedings. The Court emphasized that three of the four parties are domiciled in Germany, the Claimants are medium-sized enterprises, and ensuring fair access to justice for such enterprises is an important objective of the UPCA.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Dexcom entities concerning European patent EP 4 087 195 before the Local Division Munich. Following the filing of counterclaims for revocation by the defendants and an application to amend the patent by the claimant, all parties mutually withdrew their respective claims before the scheduled oral hearing. The Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs with no reimbursement between the parties.
Sanofi v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva (UPC_CFI_145-148/2024)
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns four consolidated patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel). The dispute centered on access to confidential information contained in Claimants' Exhibit No. D.4 (a witness statement with appendices). The court granted partial confidentiality protection while expanding access beyond Sanofi's requested limitation to only the named UPC representatives, allowing access to specified legal teams and at least one natural person from each Defendant group.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This revised order concerns proceedings before the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding the number of auxiliary requests filed by the patent proprietor (Harvard College) in its application to amend the patent at issue. The panel modified the judge-rapporteur's earlier order that had limited auxiliary requests to a one-digit number, holding that 55 auxiliary requests were not categorically unreasonable given the complexity of the case and the 42 validity attacks raised in the counterclaim for revocation. The proceedings were stayed pending the EPO Opposition Division decision, and Harvard was ordered to submit its auxiliary requests within 20 days after that decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
This is a cost determination order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction proceeding. The parties had agreed out of court on the reimbursement amounts (EUR 195,000 for first instance representation, EUR 11,000 in court fees, and EUR 38,000 for appeal representation), totaling EUR 244,000. The sole disputed issue was whether Edwards was entitled to interest on the reimbursed costs at five percentage points above the German base rate. The court rejected the interest claim, holding that neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure provide a legal basis for interest in cost determination proceedings.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an action for declaration of non-infringement regarding European Patents EP 3 678 321 and EP 3 611 989. The plaintiffs (Netgear entities) applied for leave to withdraw the action, to which the defendant (Huawei) had consented in parallel proceedings. The court granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of the court fees paid by the plaintiffs.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. Both parties jointly applied to withdraw the infringement action and the revocation counterclaims. The court granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and declined to refund court fees due to the timing of the withdrawal declarations.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321. Both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim, and the court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with a 40% reimbursement of court fees.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 897 305, a patent protecting a drinking device for retronasal perception of aroma substances. The defendant, a Chinese company, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering the defendant to cease infringing activities across UPC Member States, pay penalties of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and bear the costs of proceedings.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringing EP 3 655 341, owned by air up group GmbH, which protects a drinking device for retronasal reception of an aroma substance. The defendant, a Chinese company selling a competing drinking bottle with aroma pods, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court ordered the defendant to cease and desist from the infringing activities across UPC Member States, imposed a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich on January 7, 2025, in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both parties jointly requested a stay of the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim proceedings, with the plaintiff submitting the defendants' written consent to the stay dated January 3, 2025. The court granted the stay and cancelled the scheduled interim hearing (May 8, 2025) and main hearing (June 3, 2025).
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.