Munich (DE) Local Division
325 cases · page 9 of 11
Showing 241–269Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH; SSAB Europe Oy
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures, Tiroler Rohre GmbH sought an interim injunction against SSAB entities. After a hearing, the claimant withdrew its application. The court subsequently dismissed the request and ruled that since the withdrawal did not prevent future proceedings, there was no legitimate interest for the respondents to have a decision on the matter. Consequently, the claimant was ordered to cover all procedural costs.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the determination of costs for an appeal stage. The claimant, SES-imagotag SA, opposed the request from Hanshow entities to recover substantial appeal costs (€131,874.80). The court ultimately rejected the cost claim because the respondents missed the strict one-month deadline for filing the costs application under Rule 151 EPGVerfO. Their subsequent attempts to cure this procedural defect were deemed invalid due to improper filing and failure to pay required fees.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving infringement and revocation, the central patent (EP 3 225 320 B1) was fully revoked by the EPO Board of Appeal prior to the final hearing. Consequently, the Local Division of Munich allowed the claimant to withdraw its infringement suit and declared the infringement proceedings terminated. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed as moot. This decision highlights how external events, such as patent revocation, can fundamentally alter the trajectory of UPC litigation.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
In this UPC case, i-mop GmbH successfully obtained a default judgment against ARCORA International GmbH regarding the infringement of its floor cleaning device patent (EP 3 760 094). The court found that ARCORA's product infringed the patent claims and granted preliminary relief, including damages and an injunction. Although the case was ultimately concluded due to partial withdrawal by i-mop, the ruling serves as a significant precedent regarding default judgments in UPC infringement proceedings.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a cost reimbursement claim following the dismissal of an initial injunction application. The court ruled in favor of the respondents (Hanshow group), granting them up to €200,000 for first instance costs incurred during the infringement proceedings. The ruling reinforces procedural efficiency by allowing courts to assess the reasonableness of legal fees and expenses without demanding highly detailed time sheets, provided the overall claim remains within the statutory ceiling.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Samsung Electronics GmbH for security for legal costs against Headwater Research LLC. The court found that Headwater, an NPE whose business model relies solely on patent litigation revenue, failed to sufficiently rebut the defendants' claims regarding its limited financial standing. As a result, the Claimant was ordered to deposit €100,000 as security for costs.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC decision concerns an application by a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) to intervene in a patent infringement and revocation case involving NEC Corporation and TCL entities. The core issue was whether the Applicant had a sufficient legal interest to participate, given that the dispute involved FRAND licensing obligations under the HEVC standard. The Court ultimately permitted the intervention but imposed strict confidentiality measures on the access to sensitive negotiation details.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Order concerns an application to intervene in a patent infringement and revocation case involving NEC Corporation against various TCL entities, concerning HEVC Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The intervener is Access Advance LLC, the administrator of the relevant SEP pool. The Court ruled that the pool administrator possesses a genuine legal interest in the outcome, thereby admitting them as a party to the proceedings. This decision clarifies the procedural rights and limitations regarding confidential information access for patent pool administrators participating in UPC litigation.
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
This UPC decision concerns the intervention of a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities. The court affirmed that such administrators possess a genuine legal interest in the outcome, despite their involvement being primarily economic. This ruling clarifies the scope of 'legal interest' for third-party interveners in UPC proceedings, particularly those managing Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).
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 UPC decision addresses the admissibility of an intervention by a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities. The Court affirmed that such administrators possess a genuine legal interest, despite their involvement being primarily economic (licensing royalties). This ruling is significant for SEP practitioners as it clarifies the standing of patent pool managers in UPC proceedings, allowing them to participate actively to protect their FRAND obligations.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
In this UPC infringement case, Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought to proceed against Xiaomi and its affiliates regarding EP3024163. The defendants requested a suspension of the proceedings pending a final decision from the UK High Court on FRAND licensing terms. The rapporteur determined that this complex issue required a full panel ruling. Consequently, the matter was referred to the panel for decision during or after the scheduled oral hearings.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC addressed a request by Heraeus Electronics to amend its infringement claims following changes in national patent litigation. The court permitted the amendment of direct infringement claims that reflected legal finality achieved elsewhere. However, the court rejected the late addition of an indirect infringement claim, citing lack of due diligence and arguing it should have been raised at the initial filing.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This decision addresses procedural questions regarding the proper party to file a revocation counterclaim against in UPC proceedings. The court clarified that while the material owner is the ultimate rights holder, the registered patent holder can also be correctly sued for revocation purposes. This flexibility aims to streamline the process and prevent the alleged infringer from having to prove complex ownership chains.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Stephen George Edrich, Cooper Marc Gary, McKenna Paul John
In this UPC case, Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin and associated entities for infringing its patent EP 2 867 997 B1 concerning wireless inductive power transfer systems. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent by the defendants' products. Furthermore, the defendants' counterclaims seeking to invalidate the patent were also rejected. This decision reaffirms the scope and validity of the asserted technology while concluding that the specific accused products do not meet the criteria for infringement.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues arising from a patent infringement suit filed by Headwater Research LLC against several Motorola and Flextronics entities. The core dispute centered on the incorrect initial naming of one defendant, 'Lenovo EMEA DC,' which was later corrected to 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.' The court ruled that this error did not bar the proceedings but instead ordered a formal correction of the name and address in the case file. Furthermore, the court granted an application to update the registered business address for another 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.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed an issue where the claimant initially misidentified one of its defendants as 'Lenovo EMEA DC' instead of 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.'. The respondents argued that this error rendered the claim inadmissible against that party. However, the court found that this was merely a naming error and not a fatal procedural defect. Consequently, the court corrected the defendant's name and address, ordered re-service of the claim, and allowed the infringement proceedings to continue.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC infringement case between Huawei and Netgear, the court issued an order revoking a previous decision to appoint a translation expert. The revocation was based on the parties' mutual agreement that critical Chinese-language documents related to the patent were identical. This procedural step simplifies the ongoing litigation, allowing the case to proceed without the need for external linguistic verification.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Stephen George Edrich; Belkin GmbH; Belkin International, Inc; Belkin Limited; Marc Gary Cooper; Paul John McKenna
This UPC decision is a procedural order concerning the infringement case involving Philips IP Ventures B.V. against several defendants, including Belkin GmbH. The core issue addressed was the request to postpone the oral hearing due to parallel proceedings and process efficiency considerations. The court granted this request, rescheduling the hearing for October 23, 2024. This highlights the UPC's procedural mechanisms allowing parties and the court to manage complex litigation schedules.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought to expand its infringement lawsuit against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH to include OTECH Germany GmbH. The UPC Local Division of Munich rejected the request for party change, citing procedural issues and process economics. While the claimant argued lack of prior knowledge regarding OTECH's activities, the court maintained that the delay was not justifiable and suggested a new separate action could be filed if necessary.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In this UPC decision, Avago Technologies sued Tesla regarding the infringement of EP 1 838 002, a patent covering programmable hybrid transmitters. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Tesla, declaring the patent invalid for Germany because its claims were anticipated by prior art (D3). This ruling not only dismissed the infringement claim but also established a significant precedent regarding the enforceability of patents facing strong prior art challenges within the UPC framework.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH; Netgear Inc.; Netgear International Limited
Huawei Technologies initiated an infringement action against Netgear entities regarding the Wi-Fi 6 standard, asserting ownership of EP 3 611 989, which is declared essential for the standard. The defendants raised multiple counterclaims, including invalidity and non-infringement arguments. The UPC Local Division in Munich issued a procedural order setting the case for oral hearings in October 2024 and appointing an expert to translate complex technical documents, indicating that the case will proceed to detailed examination.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Hand Held Products sought an injunction against Scandit AG for infringing EP 3 866 051, a patent covering digital scanning devices. The Munich Local Court analyzed the possibility of indirect infringement stemming from the software library. Ultimately, the court denied the request for interim measures, finding that the complexity and variability in hardware/software configuration prevented the necessary certainty required to establish direct liability against the respondent.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited
This UPC decision addresses critical procedural aspects within an application for provisional measures concerning a herbicide composition patent. The court clarified the burden of proof for product claims, stating that applicants do not need to prove why the composition has all features, only that it does or will. It also set strict limits on validity challenges in summary proceedings, requiring respondents to narrow their arguments to three key points. These rulings provide important guidance for practitioners navigating urgent infringement actions at the UPC.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order addressed a request for protection of confidential information filed by the Defendants in an infringement action. The UPC Court granted the confidentiality request, recognizing that sensitive details regarding negotiations and FRAND Counterclaims required protection. This decision reinforces the mechanism available under the UPCA to safeguard trade secrets during litigation. For patent practitioners, this case highlights the importance of adhering strictly to procedural rules (Rule 262A RoP) when seeking confidential treatment for information.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order addressed a request for protection of confidential information filed by several TCL entities in an infringement action against NEC Corporation. The UPC Court confirmed the confidentiality status of sensitive documents related to FRAND negotiations and counterclaims. The ruling sets out strict rules governing who can access this proprietary data, ensuring that it is only used within the scope of the litigation. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms available under the UPCA for protecting trade secrets during complex patent disputes.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, AUDI AG
Network System Technologies LLC successfully withdrew its infringement action against Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH following a settlement, as permitted under UPC Rule 265 RoP. The court formally closed these proceedings while leaving the claims against Volkswagen AG and AUDI AG unaffected. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties reach private settlements.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the proper filing of exhibits and the extension of deadlines in an infringement action involving NEC Corporation against various TCL entities. The Defendants argued that procedural errors, such as the exhibit replacement request not being filed by the strictly designated CMS representative, warranted a full deadline extension. However, the UPC Panel rejected this argument, emphasizing the general duty to support proceedings and the need for efficient case management. The Court confirmed that while flexibility exists in representation (Rule 8.2 RoP), procedural extensions must be used cautiously. The ruling reinforces the principle that parties cannot benefit from their own non-compliance with procedural duties.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited , Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural order concerning confidential information, the UPC Local Division Munich balanced the need for parties' effective legal representation against the protection of trade secrets. The Court granted the Defendants' request to classify certain internal documents as strictly confidential, limiting access only to named representatives and employees. This ruling reinforces the principle that while lawyers require necessary access, accountability must be maintained by clearly defining who is responsible for maintaining confidentiality.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
In this UPC case, Motorola Mobility LLC sought leave to amend its infringement claim against Ericsson, specifically to include requests for injunctive relief and recall of infringing products. The court ultimately rejected this application, ruling that the Claimant had not acted with sufficient diligence. The decision emphasizes strict procedural adherence in SEP litigation within the UPC, particularly regarding when remedies like injunctions can be introduced.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
In this UPC case concerning a 5G SEP patent (EP3342086), Motorola Mobility LLC sought leave to amend its infringement claim to include requests for injunctive relief and product recall against Ericsson. The Court of First Instance rejected the application, ruling that the Claimant had not acted with sufficient diligence. The court noted that similar remedies could have been requested earlier, citing prior actions in the UK, thereby limiting the ability of SEP holders to unilaterally delay enforcement while claiming FRAND obligations.
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.