Munich (DE) Local Division
374 cases · page 9 of 13
Showing 241–269Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning confidentiality measures in infringement actions related to European Patent No. 3 215 288. The defendant Vibrantz sought to classify certain recipe/formulation information regarding sintering pastes as confidential and restrict access to a limited number of persons. The court granted secrecy protection but allowed access to the five named natural persons requested by the Heraeus plaintiffs, finding that the defendant had unnecessarily disclosed the exact recipe details in its submissions.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a preliminary order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. The order relates to an application by the claimant for an order to produce evidence under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure. The order was issued on 12 November 2024 by Presiding Judge Dr. Zigann.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH & SSAB Europe Oy
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an application for provisional measures filed by Tiroler Rohre GmbH regarding EP 2 839 083 against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy. After the oral hearing where the court indicated concerns about granting the order, the applicant withdrew the application. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the applicant to bear all procedural costs including the costs of the protective letter filed by the defendants.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This decision of the Local Chamber Munich concerns the assessment of costs for appeal proceedings (APL_8/2024, UPC_CoA_1/2024). The Hanshow entities filed their cost assessment application on June 18, 2024, more than one month after the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on May 13, 2024, thereby missing the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP. The court rejected both the request for retroactive extension of the deadline under Rule 9.3(a) RoP and the cost assessment application itself, holding that re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP is the lex specialis remedy that takes precedence over a general extension request.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court 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 claimant withdrew the infringement action and the defendant sought a declaration that the counterclaim had become moot. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared both proceedings terminated, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and granted each party a 60% reimbursement of court fees (€6,600.00 each).
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 of the Unified Patent Court following the rejection of SES-imagotag SA's application for interim measures against four Hanshow group companies. The court assessed the recoverable costs of the prevailing respondents (Hanshow entities) at €200,000, applying a plausibility check rather than requiring minute-by-hour breakdowns, and rejecting the applicant's arguments regarding excessive representation and non-recoverable interpretation costs.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o., and TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
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.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
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. and Others
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.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
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 2 645 714 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a legal interest and that allowing it would circumvent a non-disclosure agreement and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich admitted the intervention in support of the Claimant, subject to strict confidentiality restrictions limiting Access Advance's access to certain sensitive information.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others (Access Advance LLC, Applicant)
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of an HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a sufficient legal interest and that allowing intervention would circumvent an NDA and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich granted the application to intervene, subject to strict confidentiality protections and procedural conditions.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP3024163, owned by Panasonic Holdings Corporation, against ten Xiaomi entities. The defendants sought a stay of proceedings under Rule 295(l) and/or (m) RoP pending the UK High Court of Justice's decision on the final terms of a FRAND license agreement. The presiding judge and rapporteur referred the matter to the full panel, proposing that the decision be made during or after the already scheduled oral hearings in late November 2024 and late January 2025.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an infringement action based on European Patent No. 3 215 288. The plaintiffs sought to amend their claims under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure following the final judgment of the German Federal Patent Court, which had invalidated the device claim but maintained the use claim. The court largely allowed the amendments but rejected the addition of a claim for indirect infringement of the process claim, finding that this could have been brought with the original lawsuit.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the proper defendant for a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent No. 3 215 288 before the Local Chamber Munich. Vibrantz GmbH filed its revocation counterclaim against Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff 2), the registered patent proprietor, rather than against Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff 1), the undisputed substantive proprietor. The court rejected Heraeus Precious Metals' applications to dismiss the counterclaim as manifestly inadmissible, holding that under Rules 25.1, 42, and 8.6 RoP, a revocation counterclaim may validly be directed against the registered proprietor.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc. and Others
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 B1 concerning wireless inductive power transfer. The Local Chamber Munich found that Belkin's Qi-standard compliant wireless chargers infringed the patent, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaims for invalidity. The court ordered injunctions, information disclosure, and provisional damages of EUR 119,000, but limited the territorial scope to exclude acts within Germany.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court addressed whether the originally named fifth defendant, 'Lenovo EMEA DC,' was a party capable of being sued, and whether the plaintiff could correct the designation to Flextronics International Europe B.V. The court held that 'Lenovo EMEA DC' was a non-existent entity, not merely a misnomer, and ordered a party correction by analogous application of Rule 305 RoP, while also requiring re-service of the complaint to the corrected fifth defendant.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 110 069. The court addressed whether the claimant's naming of 'Lenovo EMEA DC' as Defendant 5 constituted a mere misnomer or the naming of a non-existent party, and whether the case heading could be corrected to substitute 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.' The court applied Rule 305 RoP by analogy to correct the party designation but held that no effective service had been made, requiring re-service and granting the corrected Defendant 5 the full period to respond.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. The order revokes a prior direction appointing a translation expert after the parties agreed that the defendants' submitted translation could be used and that the relevant Chinese-language priority and application documents were identical with respect to the passages relevant to the dispute.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Stephen George Edrich, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc, Belkin Limited, Marc Gary Cooper, Paul John McKenna
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 2 372 863. The plaintiff, Philips IP Ventures B.V., requested postponement of the oral hearing originally scheduled for September 11, 2024, due to a rescheduled decision announcement in a parallel proceeding. The defendants consented, and the presiding judge granted the request, moving the hearing to October 23, 2024.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court denied Panasonic Holdings Corporation's request under Rule 305 RoP to add OTECH Germany GmbH as a third defendant to its patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 024 163. The court found the request to add the new party was filed late and that the circumstances did not justify allowing the late addition, given the advanced stage of the proceedings and the potential prejudice to the existing defendants. The court permitted appeal, as the relevant questions had not yet been clarified by the Court of Appeal.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent No. 1 838 002 B1 relating to a programmable hybrid transmitter. The defendants filed nullity counterclaims. The Local Chamber Munich held that the independent claims 1 and 7 were anticipated by prior art document D3, declared the patent null and void for Germany, rejected the requests for amendment, and dismissed the infringement claim, ordering Avago to bear the costs.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities concerning European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1, which relates to Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) standard technology. The defendants raised non-infringement, exhaustion, and FRAND/competition law defenses, along with three counterclaims for revocation. The order addresses procedural matters including deadlines for submissions, appointment of a court expert for translations, and scheduling of the oral hearing.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Hand Held Products, Inc. sought interim measures against Scandit AG for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 866 051 concerning indicia-reading devices. The Local Chamber Munich found indirect infringement of claim 10 based on Scandit's software development kit (SDK) and issued a relative prohibition against offering/supplying the SDK for use in certain UPC member states, subject to a EUR 500,000 security deposit by the applicant.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited, proprietor of European patent EP 2 152 073 B1 relating to herbicide compositions, sought provisional measures against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited in connection with their herbicide product 'Kagura'. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed issues including the burden of pleading and proof for composition claims, the risk of first infringement based on distribution outside Contracting States combined with advertising within them, and the requirement for a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause. The court also addressed procedural matters including the limitation of validity arguments to the best three in summary proceedings and the applicable safe harbour period for temporal urgency.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 057 321. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) (TCL entities) filed an amended application for protection of confidential information regarding their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, after reaching an agreement with the Claimant on the terms of a confidentiality club. The Court granted the application, classifying specified information and annexes as confidential and restricting access to named representatives and their teams.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 645 714. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) sought protection of confidential information in their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, and after the parties reached an understanding on the applicable confidentiality club, the court granted the amended application. The court classified specific information as confidential, restricted access to designated representatives and their teams, and imposed a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 for any culpable breach of the confidentiality obligations.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, and AUDI AG
Network System Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich concerning European patent EP 1 552 669 against four defendants. The Claimant withdrew the action against Defendants 1 and 2 (Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) pursuant to Rule 265 RoP following a settlement. The court permitted the partial withdrawal and closed the proceedings against those two defendants, with each party bearing its own costs.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerned a panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 863 637. The court upheld the replacement of an erroneously filed exhibit (Exhibit BP 6) and maintained the extended deadline of 19 July 2024 for filing the Statement of Defence, rejecting the Defendants' request for a further extension to 9 August 2024. The court also held that Ms. Emily Rohde, as part of the Claimant's legal team, was authorized to file the request for exhibit replacement on behalf of NEC Corporation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited
Procedural order concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendants requested that certain internal information contained in their Rejoinder be treated as strictly confidential, and the Local Division Munich granted the request, restricting access to the Claimant's named representatives and three named employees, with provisions for confidentiality obligations and penalty payments for breaches.
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.