306 cases · page 7 of 11
Showing 181–209Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH v.Respondent
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.Respondent
This is a procedural order by the President of the Court of First Instance concerning an application by NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) to change the language of proceedings from German to English under R. 323 RoP and Article 49(5) UPCA. The main infringement action was brought by BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG based on European patents EP3743812 and EP2628080, both granted in English. NVIDIA argued that English should be adopted as the language of proceedings because it is the language of the patents, while the Claimants opposed the change. The order sets out the parties' positions and the points at issue for the court's consideration.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
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.
Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare S.L.U. v.Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium
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.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This Revised Order concerns procedural matters in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The dispute centers on Claimant 2 (Harvard College)'s filing of 55 auxiliary requests in its application to amend the patent at issue, with parallel opposition proceedings pending before the European Patent Office (EPO). The Defendants sought to limit the number of auxiliary requests and adjust procedural deadlines, while the judge-rapporteur had previously ordered a stay of proceedings and a reduction of auxiliary requests to a one-digit number. The Revised Order addresses Claimant 2's subsequent application regarding the implementation of these prior orders.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This cost determination proceedings order concerned the reimbursement of costs from prior interim injunction proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The parties had agreed on the principal amounts of recoverable costs, but Edwards sought additional interest at five percentage points above the base rate under § 247 BGB from the date of filing. The court rejected the interest claim, holding that reimbursable procedural costs and expenses do not bear interest in cost determination proceedings.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the Netgear group of companies to withdraw their action for a declaration of non-infringement against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd regarding European Patent Nos. 3 678 321 and EP 3 611 989. The defendant had already consented to the withdrawal in parallel proceedings. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, set the dispute value at €1 million, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the court fees paid, with each party bearing their own costs.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This case concerned an infringement action filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against three Netgear entities regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321, accompanied by a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties reached a settlement and jointly applied for leave to withdraw their respective claims. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 40% refund of the court fees paid by each party, with each side bearing its own costs.
UPC Decision UPC-001054 v.Respondent
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.
UPC Decision UPC-001047 v.Respondent
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.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 2 043 492. Dyson Technology Limited, as plaintiff, requested the suspension of both the infringement proceedings and the related counterclaim proceedings, submitting the defendants' written consent dated January 3, 2025. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering the suspension of both proceedings and cancelling the scheduled interim hearing of May 8, 2025 and main hearing of June 3, 2025.
Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns four related patent infringement actions brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The core issue was Sanofi's application under Rule 305 RoP to substitute Sanofi-Aventis France with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie following a corporate merger. The court granted the substitution, ruling that the retroactive effect of the merger was not relevant and that no formal stay of proceedings was necessary.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. v.Respondent
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed an infringement action against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1. The defendants had filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Before any decision on the merits, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 678 321. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd filed an infringement action against three Netgear entities, who filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Both parties agreed to have the infringement action and the invalidity counterclaim heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, and the panel concurred with this request.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for invalidity involving European Patent No. 3 678 321. The technically qualified judge previously assigned to the case, Patrice Vidon, resigned pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Statutes. To ensure continuity of the panel's composition, the presiding judge requested the assignment of a replacement technically qualified judge effective January 1, 2025.
Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in a declaration of non-infringement action brought by Netgear entities against Huawei Technologies concerning European Patents Nos. 3 678 321 and 3 611 989. The order addresses two procedural matters: the inclusion of a license agreement between Huawei and Qualcomm (previously filed as Annex K68 in related infringement proceedings) into the present case file, and the assignment of technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon from a related proceeding to this case. Both parties consented to these procedural economy measures, and the court ordered the continuation of existing confidentiality protections.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed patent infringement actions against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patents Nos. 2 197 132, 3 024 163, and 2 584 854. After the written procedure was concluded, the parties agreed to withdraw all claims and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The court granted the withdrawals and ordered a 40 percent partial refund of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning two combined cases (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The plaintiff Snowpixie Co., Ltd. (Japan) sought extensions of deadlines for filing its reply to the infringement action and its response to the counterclaim for revocation. After the Rapporteur initially extended deadlines to December 23, 2024, the plaintiff's representative filed a further request on December 23, 2024 seeking an additional extension until December 27, 2024, citing the responsible attorney's ongoing medical treatment and inability to complete the briefs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns three consolidated patent infringement actions brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH involving European Patents Nos. 2 197 132, 3 024 163, and 2 584 854. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested leave to withdraw their respective actions and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40 percent partial refund of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural matters following the Local Division Munich's August 30, 2024 decision revoking European Patent No. 1 838 002 and dismissing the infringement action brought by Avago Technologies against Tesla entities. After Avago filed an appeal, Tesla filed a cost determination application, which Tesla subsequently sought to withdraw. Avago also sought leave to withdraw the main action. The presiding judge granted the withdrawal of the cost determination application, declared those proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear their own costs in the cost determination proceedings.
HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG for access to the case files of an ongoing patent infringement action between PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG (plaintiff) and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH (defendants) concerning European Patent EP 3 602 692. HARTING, which had filed an opposition against the patent in suit before the European Patent Office (joined by defendant ILME GmbH), sought access to the briefs and evidence filed in the main infringement proceedings to properly defend its interests in both the opposition proceedings and related utility model infringement actions. The Local Chamber Munich held that an opponent in a pending opposition proceeding concerning the patent in suit has a legal interest in accessing the case files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP during the ongoing proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. The court granted both parties' Rule 263 requests to add Romania (which acceded to the Unitary Patent system on 1 September 2024) to the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, and granted the claimant's request to amend its information request to require purchase documents. The court set the dispute value at €16 million, scheduled the oral hearing for 11 February 2025, and rejected requests for party and court experts.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited regarding European Patent No. 3 611 989. The decision sets out guiding principles on several procedural and substantive issues, including the formal requirements for withdrawing from the opt-out under Rule 5.7 of the Rules of Procedure, the treatment of exhaustion defenses in infringement proceedings, and the FRAND-related defenses arising from the CJEU's Huawei v. ZTE ruling and IEEE Letters of Assurance. The court clarified that a patent holder who has made multiple acceptable licensing offers (such as a bilateral portfolio license and a pool license) cannot have its infringement action dismissed if at least one offer meets FRAND requirements.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Respondent
This order concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of September 13, 2024, in which the Local Chamber Munich found the Belkin defendants liable for patent infringement of EP 2 867 997 B1 and ordered them to provide information under Article 67 EPGÜ. The court addressed two key issues: whether the claimant's request for information in electronic form was sufficiently specific, and the nature of coercive penalties under Article 82 EPGÜ. The court held that electronic form must be specifically requested, and that coercive penalties serve both coercive and punitive functions.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited sought to revoke a preliminary measures order (ORD 47657/2024) against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited, arguing that the underlying main proceedings on the merits were not timely started within the non-extendable deadlines under Rule 213.1 RoP. The Local Division Munich dismissed the application, holding that the proceedings were validly started when the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024, and that Rule 15(2) RoP does not require court fees to have been physically received by the Court before the deadline expires.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, Netgear Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich concerning an application for interim measures filed by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities. The dispute concerns European Patents Nos. 3 611 989 and 3 678 321, both declared essential to the WiFi-6 standard. The order addresses the court's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) and (c) EPGÜ to grant interim measures protecting against threatened foreign anti-suit and/or anti-enforcement injunctions, holding that such injunctions violate the European right to access to justice under Art. 47 EU Charter and the German constitutional right under Art. 2(1), 19(4) GG, and qualify as tortious acts under § 823(1) BGB.
air up group GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application concerning the service of a request for preliminary measures (interim injunction) to a Chinese-domiciled defendant in proceedings related to EP 3 655 341. After formal service under the Hague Service Convention failed due to the Chinese authority's non-processing for over six months, and alternative methods of service were neither factually nor legally possible, the court held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. Service was deemed effective as of the date of the order, with the defendant given fourteen days to file an objection.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
Avago Technologies, proprietor of European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1 (relating to the 1000Base-T1 Automotive Ethernet Standard, in force only in Germany), sought provisional measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation. The dispute arose after Realtek filed a lawsuit against Avago in the Court of Chancery of Delaware (USA), which was referred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking what Avago characterized as foreign anti-suit and/or anti-enforcement relief. The Local Division Munich ruled on the court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief against such foreign measures, holding that foreign anti-suit and enforcement injunctions violate the European right to effective judicial protection (Art. 47 EU Charter) and the German constitutional guarantee of access to courts.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns infringement and nullity proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation). The plaintiffs (Heraeus entities) allege patent infringement by Vibrantz GmbH in Germany, Italy, and France, while the defendant asserts prior use rights and has filed a nullity counterclaim. The order addresses multiple procedural applications, including a review of a prior refusal to allow amendment for indirect infringement of a process claim, and applications to extend both the main claim and counterclaim to cover Romania following its accession to the Unified Patent Court agreement on September 1, 2024.
Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad International GmbH, Myriad Genetics B.V., Eurobio Scientific, Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns a request by the defendants for the claimant to provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 346 403. The defendants argued that the claimant, a Korean IP monetization company incorporated in 2024 with limited assets and a low credit rating, posed a risk that any cost order would be unrecoverable. The claimant did not contest the request and agreed to provide security of EUR 112,000, and the court ordered the security to be provided by deposit or bank guarantee by 15 January 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.