Munich (DE) Local Division
325 cases · page 8 of 11
Showing 211–239Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a case involving Avago Technologies against Tesla, the claimant voluntarily withdrew its infringement lawsuit concerning EP 1 770 912. The Munich Local Division of the UPC granted this request, terminating the proceedings without prejudice to future actions. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework regarding claim withdrawal when no party has a vested interest in the outcome.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd has initiated an infringement lawsuit against Netgear International Limited and its affiliates concerning European Patent EP 3 678 321. Crucially, the court has consolidated this infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation, meaning both sides will argue simultaneously on whether the patent is valid and if it is being infringed. This procedural consolidation sets the stage for a comprehensive trial in Munich.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
This UPC decision is a procedural order in an ongoing infringement and revocation case between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Netgear entities concerning EP patent No. 3 678 321. The court addressed the resignation of one of the technically qualified judges assigned to the panel. Consequently, the court mandated the reassignment of a new judge to maintain the integrity and continuity of the proceedings.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case UPC_CFI_152/2024 involves Netgear (claimant) and Huawei (respondent). The court addressed two key procedural matters: incorporating a relevant Qualcomm license agreement from a prior infringement case into the current non-infringement determination, and assigning an expert judge. The decision emphasizes judicial efficiency by linking proceedings and utilizing specialized expertise to handle complex cross-case issues.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
In this procedural order from the Munich Local Division, the court granted a short extension of deadlines requested by the claimant's counsel due to documented health issues. The case involves both infringement and invalidity proceedings concerning EP 3 030 471. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to grant extensions when credible medical reasons are presented, while also imposing strict conditions for proving those claims.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Court Munich accepted the mutual agreement by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and Xiaomi Inc. to withdraw all pending infringement claims and counterclaims related to three European patents. This decision effectively terminated the complex litigation proceedings without a final judgment on patent validity or infringement. The court also confirmed the parties' right to receive a partial refund of their court fees, reflecting the procedural nature of the settlement.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses a procedural motion for an extension of deadlines in ongoing infringement and invalidity proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024; UPC_CFI_609/2024). The claimant, Snowpixie Co., Ltd., requested additional time due to the temporary health issues of its legal counsel. The court granted this extension until December 27, 2024, provided the counsel can further substantiate their condition on the original deadline date. This highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines when genuine hardship is demonstrated.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural matter following the initial invalidation of EP 1 838 002. The court allowed Avago Technologies to withdraw its cost determination application, effectively ending that specific proceeding. Crucially, the ruling established that in this context, each party must bear their own costs, providing clarity on cost allocation after a patent's revocation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, Panasonic Holdings Corporation successfully withdrew its infringement actions against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by all parties after the written proceedings were concluded. While the core dispute over patent infringement is resolved through termination, the court provided procedural clarity regarding cost allocation and partial refunds of court fees.
Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC decision addressed an application for access to court files filed by Harting Electric Stiftung & Co. KG (the applicant) in a case involving infringement and opposition proceedings related to EP 3 602 692. The core dispute was whether the applicant, who is also involved in national litigation concerning derivative utility models, had a right to review evidence from the main UPC infringement suit. The court ultimately granted access, establishing that parties in ongoing opposition proceedings have a legitimate interest in reviewing relevant case materials for proper defense and representation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order in the Edwards Lifesciences v Meril case focused on managing the complex infringement and revocation proceedings. Key issues included the claimant's request to amend its claims (e.g., including Romania) and the defendants' requests for a court expert. The Court set deadlines for parties to provide technical evidence, cost estimates, and clarified procedural steps moving toward the oral hearing.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This UPC decision between Huawei and Netgear addresses critical intersections of patent law, antitrust compliance (FRAND), and exhaustion principles in the telecommunications sector. The court ruled that a patent holder's obligation to offer FRAND terms is complex; making multiple acceptable offers can prevent an infringement suit from being dismissed on cartel grounds. While the core lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, specific claims were granted with an injunction, highlighting the nuanced application of these legal doctrines.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH, and Belkin Limited
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 2 867 997 B1), Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a disclosure order against Belkin International and its subsidiaries. After the defendants failed to provide complete, organized information in an electronic format as required by the initial judgment, the court imposed a substantial Zwangsgeld (coercive fine). The ruling serves as a strong warning that non-compliance with judicial orders for evidence or information can lead to significant financial penalties under UPC rules.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This UPC decision between Huawei and Netgear addresses critical intersections of patent law, antitrust regulations (FRAND), and SEP licensing. The court ruled on the validity of exhaustion defenses and clarified that a patent holder's obligation under cartel law is met if they provide multiple FRAND-compliant options, such as pool licenses. While the infringement claim was partially granted with an injunction, the overall lawsuit was dismissed, highlighting the nuanced balance between IP rights enforcement and competition law compliance in the UPC.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application to revoke provisional measures based on alleged procedural deadlines. The Applicant argued that because court fees were not received by the Court before a specific deadline, the proceedings had not properly started. However, the Court rejected this argument, clarifying the precise wording of the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The ruling emphasizes that 'paid' is sufficient under Rule 15(2) RoP for lodging, and merely filing in the CMS satisfies the requirement to 'start' proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc.
Huawei sought a provisional measure (Anti-Suit/Anti-Enforcement Injunction) against Netgear, arguing that Netgear's US antitrust lawsuit threatened its European patent rights related to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei contended that such an injunction would constitute an unlawful interference with its property rights in Germany. Although the court recognized the potential illegality of such a measure under German law, it ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC case involved Avago seeking provisional measures to halt Realtek's US litigation and the enforcement of German injunctions, arguing that these actions violated fundamental European justice rights. The court initially considered the request but later issued a correction to its order. Crucially, the final ruling allowed the US-based legal proceedings to continue regarding claims other than those related to the alleged license breach, keeping the matter pending.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue: establishing 'good service' when serving documents internationally, specifically in China. The applicant sought confirmation that the extensive attempts to serve the preliminary measures application constituted valid notification despite the lack of formal delivery certificates. The Court granted this request, effectively deeming the steps taken as good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. This ruling provides significant procedural relief for applicants facing protracted international service challenges.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
In this UPC case concerning an application for preliminary measures, the Court addressed a critical procedural hurdle: service of documents on a defendant domiciled in China. Despite extensive efforts—including formal and informal attempts under the Hague Service Convention—the court found that traditional service methods had failed to yield a certificate of delivery. The judge ruled that these unsuccessful steps constituted 'good service' under Rule 275.2 RoP, effectively allowing the proceedings to move forward despite the lack of confirmed receipt by the defendant.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning service of documents in cross-border litigation, specifically involving China. The applicant sought confirmation that the extensive efforts made to serve the preliminary measures application constituted 'good service' despite the failure of formal and informal methods under the Hague Service Convention. The Court granted this request, effectively validating the steps taken by the registry. This ruling provides significant procedural relief for applicants facing intractable service issues in foreign jurisdictions.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order in a UPC infringement case involving Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz addresses complex requests for expanding the scope of claims, particularly concerning Romania's accession to the UPC. The court proposed a unified approach to allow all parties' amendments to proceed, thereby streamlining the litigation process. This decision highlights the Court's focus on procedural fairness and efficiency when dealing with evolving jurisdictional scopes.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH, Myriad GmbH, Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad Genetics Inc., Eurobio Scientific
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Court mandated that the Claimant, GXD-Bio Corporation, provide security for legal costs to the Defendants. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant's financial standing raised legitimate concerns about cost recovery. Although the initial request was for a default judgment upon failure to comply, the Court granted a seven-week extension until January 15, 2025, allowing the Claimant time to arrange the necessary deposit.
Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co
In this UPC case concerning a cabinet levelling apparatus, Häfele SE & Co KG sought provisional measures against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. The court ultimately denied the request for an injunction, citing that doubts regarding the patent's legal basis could weigh against granting such relief. Despite denying the immediate measure, the court set the disputed value of the patent at EUR 500,000, providing a clear financial benchmark for future proceedings.
Collomix GmbH v.Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG; Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG; Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC court addressed a motion by Collomix GmbH to submit physical evidence of an allegedly infringing water dosing device (PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät). The respondents argued that such evidence should have been presented at the time of filing the claim. However, the court rejected this argument, citing Rule 172.2 EPGVerfO, which grants the court the power to order the submission of evidence at any point in the proceedings if the claimant asserts a fact and possesses the item. This decision reinforces the flexibility of the UPC's procedural rules regarding evidence presentation, ensuring that necessary preparatory steps are taken without prematurely limiting the scope of proof.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Panel rejected the Defendants' requests to compel the European Commission to provide details on ongoing antitrust investigations against the Claimant. The Court determined that since both parties confirmed the EC procedure was still in a preliminary fact-gathering stage without a formal investigation, there was no relevant new information to be obtained at this time. This decision underscores the court's focus on the core patent litigation while managing procedural requests for external regulatory data.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh
Edwards Lifesciences successfully sued Meril Life Sciences in the UPC Local Division Munich regarding infringement of its patented SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve. The court found infringement and issued a comprehensive order, including the destruction of infringing devices and substantial preliminary damages. This ruling reinforces the strength of patent rights within the Unified Patent Court system, particularly for critical medical technologies like TAVI.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Claimant) sued Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Respondents) for infringement of EP 3646825. The Defendants sought to compel the UPC to request information from the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant's patent practices. However, the Panel rejected this request, finding that the preliminary nature of the EC proceedings meant no formal investigation had been opened. This decision underscores the Court's focus on procedural efficiency and its reliance on established facts presented during hearings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addressed applications filed by Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, seeking information about ongoing antitrust investigations by the European Commission against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The Court ultimately rejected these requests, finding that the Claimant's assertion—that the EC procedure was still in a preliminary fact-gathering stage without a formal investigation—was undisputed. This decision keeps the main infringement proceedings moving forward without external interference from EU competition authorities.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a request for confidentiality protection regarding sensitive recipe information in an ongoing infringement case. The court balanced the need for trade secret protection against the parties' right to conduct their defense. Ultimately, while granting strict confidentiality measures, the Court rejected the respondent's attempt to severely restrict access, allowing all named claimants to view the protected documents.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S
Headwater Research LLC initiated an infringement action against Samsung Electronics entities before the UPC. This preliminary order addresses procedural matters, specifically concerning the production of evidence (RoP190). The case remains in the early stages of litigation as the court manages the discovery process.
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.