322 cases · page 8 of 11
Showing 211–239Huawei 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.
Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on November 25, 2024, in case UPC_CFI_443/2024 concerning a request for preliminary measures brought by Häfele SE & Co KG against an unnamed defendant. The order set out seven guiding principles addressing procedural independence from ownership disputes, claim interpretation regarding subclaims, the inadmissibility of prosecution files as interpretation material, and the balance-of-interests analysis required for preliminary injunctions. The full operative provisions of the ruling are not visible in the available text excerpt.
Collomix GmbH v.Respondent
Collomix GmbH filed a patent infringement action against three defendants concerning water dosing devices marketed under the 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät' brand. After filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff requested permission to submit a physical example of the accused embodiment, including its original packaging, operating instructions, and a matching screwdriver. Defendants 1 and 2 objected, arguing under Rule 171.1 of the Rules of Procedure that the evidence should have been submitted with the initial complaint. The Local Chamber Munich ordered the submission, holding that Rule 172.2 RoP permits the court to order production of evidence at any stage of the proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh
This decision was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court's Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP 3 646 825. The headnotes address key procedural and substantive issues including the UPC's jurisdiction over pre-1 June 2023 infringing acts, the claimant's choice of competent German local division, bifurcation and referral of counterclaims for revocation under Article 32(3b) UPCA, and the court's discretion regarding stays of infringement proceedings. The decision also addresses injunctive relief under Article 34 UPCA, the consideration of third-party and public interests under Article 64(4) UPCA, and mechanisms such as mandatory licenses and single-use licenses to address public needs.
Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 646 825 before the Local Division Munich. The Defendants (Meril) filed late applications requesting the Court to approach the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the written procedure. The Court rejected the requests as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and the oral hearing, and noted that no formal investigation had been opened by the European Commission.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns the handling of confidential information in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent No. 3 215 288. The defendant Vibrantz GmbH sought to classify certain redacted text passages and unredacted exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited number of persons. The claimants Heraeus partially contested the need for protection, arguing that some information had already been disclosed in national proceedings and requesting access for five named individuals. The court addressed the scope of confidentiality protection and the number of persons permitted to access the sensitive recipe/formulation information.
Qualcomm Inc. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S
Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_54/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 12 November 2024 Claimant 1) Headwater Research LLC (Main proceeding party - Claimant) - 110 North College Ave., Suite 1116 - 75702 - Tyler, Texas - US
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Munich addressed the procedural consequences following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 2 839 083. After the applicant withdrew its request following the oral hearing, the defendants argued they had a legitimate interest in a substantive decision due to defense costs and the imminent filing of a main action. The court held that no legitimate interest existed for a decision after withdrawal, as such a decision would have no res judicata effect and could not prevent new proceedings.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, which relates to a device and method for measuring the straightness of rod-shaped workpieces. Following the complete revocation of the patent by the EPO Board of Appeal on July 4, 2024, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action under Rule 265 RoP and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The defendant sought a declaration that the revocation counterclaim had become moot under Rule 360 RoP and also requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich concerning the reimbursement of costs following the rejection of an application for interim measures. The applicant SES-imagotag SA was ordered to bear the costs of the respondents (four Hanshow group companies) up to a cap of €200,000. The court assessed the claimed costs through a plausibility check, establishing that detailed hour-by-hour breakdowns are not strictly required and that representation by a team of three lawyers and two patent attorneys is appropriate for proceedings against four group-affiliated companies.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
This is a default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) issued by the Local Chamber Munich in a patent infringement action under Article 37 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff, i-mop GmbH, is the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 760 094 B1, which protects a hand-guided floor processing device with a specific joint configuration allowing the floor part to be rotated at least ±45° around a vertical axis. The defendant, ARCORA International GmbH, is a German-domiciled company against whom the infringement claim was directed. The judgment was rendered by a panel consisting of Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß (Rapporteur), legally qualified Judge Dr. Daniel Voß, and legally qualified Judge Mojca Mlakar.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court ruled on a cost determination request concerning appeal costs. The respondents (Hanshow entities) had filed their cost determination request on June 18, 2024, more than one month after the appeal was rejected on May 13, 2024, thereby missing the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP. The court held that the retroactive extension of the deadline under Rule 9.3(a) RoP was inadmissible, as Rule 320 RoP on restitutio in integrum operates as lex specialis and displaces the general extension rule in this context.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, , TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 863 637. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Munich) admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file through the Claimant's representatives, subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on an application by Samsung under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in a patent infringement action brought by US-based Headwater Research LLC concerning EP 2 391 947. The Court found that Headwater, a non-practicing entity with no assets other than patents used in worldwide litigation, failed to substantively challenge the Defendants' concerns about cost recoverability. The Court ordered Headwater to deposit €100,000 as security for costs within three weeks.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.,, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application by Access Advance LLC, administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 863 637. The court admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
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.