322 cases · page 9 of 11
Showing 241–269NEC 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 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 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.
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP3024163. The defendants filed a stay application based on a parallel UK High Court action seeking determination of FRAND license terms. The presiding judge referred the stay application to the full panel for decision, proposing that the matter be addressed during or after already scheduled oral hearings concerning related patents.
Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns a nullity counterclaim filed by Vibrantz GmbH against Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG, the registered patent holder of European Patent No. 3 215 288, while Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG is the substantive patent owner. Heraeus Precious Metals argued the counterclaim should have been directed against the substantive owner and was therefore manifestly hopeless or inadmissible. The Local Division Munich rejected these applications, holding that under Rule 25.1 in conjunction with Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure, a nullity counterclaim may validly be directed against the registered patent holder under Rule 8.6.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc.,
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued several Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 B1, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. The dispute concerned the interpretation of claim 20 of the patent and whether the Belkin defendants' activities constituted patent infringement. The Local Chamber Munich issued its main decision on 13 September 2024, addressing issues including claim construction, the definition of an infringer, and the possibility of injunctions against company officers as intermediaries.
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning the correction of party designation in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The plaintiff had originally named a non-existent entity 'Lenovo EMEA DC' as the fifth defendant, which defendants 1-4 argued was not a party-capable entity under Dutch law. The court addressed whether the plaintiff could correct the party designation to identify the correct defendant, Flextronics International Europe B.V., by way of analogous application of Rule 305 of the Rules of Procedure.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. The order revokes a prior directive that had appointed a translation expert, after the parties agreed that the defendants' submitted translation of the priority application could be used and that the relevant Chinese-language documents were identical with respect to the passages relevant to the dispute, particularly regarding 'Preferred Embodiment 2.'
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning a patent infringement action involving 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, citing the rescheduling of a parallel proceeding's decision date and the strategic importance of another related case. The defendants consented to the postponement, and the presiding judge granted the request, rescheduling the hearing to October 23, 2024.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH regarding European Patent No. 3 024 163. The plaintiff sought to extend the lawsuit to include OTECH Germany GmbH as an additional defendant, arguing that OTECH had taken over the smartphone sales activities previously handled by OROPE and had already been found liable for patent infringement by the Mannheim Regional Court in June 2023. The defendants opposed the extension as inadmissible and untimely, contending the plaintiff could and should have sued OTECH directly or filed the extension request much earlier.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE before the Local Chamber Munich. The dispute involves European Patent No. 1 838 002 B1, titled 'Programmable Hybrid Transmitter,' which is in force only in Germany. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants infringe claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12 of the patent, which relate to a transmitter architecture with a baseband processing module, an up-conversion module, and a power amplifier circuit operating in first and second modes. The decision was rendered on August 30, 2024, following an oral hearing held on June 25, 2024.
UPC Decision UPC-001299 v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against three Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989 B1. The patent relates to technology implemented in devices using the Wi-Fi 6 standard, which the defendants manufacture and distribute. The order was issued by the presiding judge acting as rapporteur under Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure, with the proceedings conducted in German.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on August 27, 2024, concerning a request for a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out five guiding legal principles addressing direct versus indirect patent infringement liability under the 'extended workbench' doctrine, the scope of injunctive relief for indirect infringement, limitations on validity arguments in preliminary proceedings, and temporal urgency requirements. The court found that the contested program library combined with videos and documentation did not meet the standard for direct infringement liability, as alternative programming possibilities meant completion of the patented device could not be established with certainty.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns an application for provisional measures brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited in relation to European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centers on alleged infringement through the distribution of a patent-infringing composition outside the Contracting States and advertising of a composition under the same name within the Contracting States, creating a risk of first infringement. The Local Division Munich addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the burden of pleading and proof for product claims directed to compositions, the sufficiency of cease-and-desist declarations to eliminate risk of first infringement, the limitation of validity arguments to three in summary proceedings, and the applicable safe harbour period for temporal urgency.
TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v.NEC Corporation
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.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v.NEC Corporation
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.Respondent
The Claimant, Network System Technologies LLC, sued four Defendants for patent infringement regarding European patent EP 1 552 669. By letter dated 1 July 2024, the Claimant declared a partial withdrawal of the action against Defendants 1 and 2 (Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) following a settlement. The Local Division Munich held that Rule 265 RoP applies to partial subjective withdrawals of action, permitted the withdrawal with the consent of Defendants 1 and 2, and ordered that each party bear its own costs as agreed.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addressed preliminary issues in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 863 637. The court dealt with the Defendants' request to extend the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence, which was based on the Claimant's erroneous submission of the AVC standard as Exhibit BP 6 instead of the intended HEVC standard. The order also addressed questions regarding the authority of representatives acting before the court and the proper filing of requests.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited , Dexcom Inc.
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.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., , TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The sole issue addressed in this order was whether proper service had been effected on Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.), which is domiciled in China. The Court held that service was validly completed on 11 May 2024, accepting the defendant's own statement as proof of service.
Manfred Sauer GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a request by the defendants (Applicants) to dispense with translation of German-language exhibits filed in patent infringement proceedings relating to European patent EP 2 911 727. The Court dismissed the request, holding that the panel as a whole lacked sufficient German language skills and that the number, scope, and nature of the eleven exhibits made it disproportionate to waive the translation requirement. The Applicants had already filed machine translations as an auxiliary measure, thereby complying with Rule 7(1) RoP.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_41/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in the main proceedings related to European Patent 3 780 758 delivered on 06/08/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim: 30/01/2024 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Defendant
DexCom Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott s.r.l., Abbott GmbH, Abbott B.V., Abbott France (S.A.S.), Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott (S.A./N.V.), Abbott Diagnostics GmbH
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities alleging that their FreeStyle Libre 2 glucose monitoring system infringed EP 3 797 685 B1, which relates to communication systems between a sensor electronics unit and a display device in an analyte monitoring system. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, and the Munich Local Division found the patent invalid for lacking an inventive step over the prior art (Berman) when supplemented with common general knowledge. The patent was revoked in its entirety, auxiliary requests were dismissed, and all infringement claims were dismissed with costs borne by the claimant.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.
Amgen Inc. brought a patent infringement action against Sanofi and Regeneron entities concerning European Patent 3,666,797 and their drug Praluent (Alirocumab). The defendants had filed revocation actions, and the Central Division revoked the patent in its entirety on 16 July 2024. Both parties agreed to stay the infringement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation decision, and the court granted the stay.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_501/2023 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 29/07/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 27/12/2023 Meril GmbH (Defendant) - Bornheimer Straße 135- 137 - 53119 - Bonn - DE Statement of claim
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation u. a.
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl against European Patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, relating to prosthetic heart valve systems with sealing mechanisms to prevent perivalvular leakage. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation. The claimant argued that the patent was invalid for several reasons, including that the subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. The patent at issue was filed on 16 July 2012 as a divisional application and claims priority from US applications of 15 July 2011 and 13 July 2012.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action and counterclaims for revocation regarding European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to prosthetic heart valve systems with sealing mechanisms to prevent perivalvular leakage. Meril Italy Srl filed the main revocation action, while Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation against the patent proprietor Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The claimant argued, among other grounds, that the patent's subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addresses key legal principles relating to claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step and obviousness. The judgment establishes headnotes on how the skilled person interprets patent claims using the description and drawings, the standard for claiming the 'same invention' for priority purposes, and the framework for evaluating obviousness and inventive contribution.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerned a patent infringement action brought by KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 221 117. Following an oral hearing on April 16, 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 20% reimbursement of court fees to the plaintiff under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a procedural dispute in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP 3 024 163 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The defendants, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH, requested an extension of the deadline to file their Duplik (reply) to the infringement claim, the reply to the counterclaim for revocation, and the response to the patent amendment request, until September 17, 2024. The court found that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' of its reply, with redacted portions serving as placeholders for later submissions, was impermissible, but granted an exception since this issue was being addressed for the first time.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns an application by Panasonic Holdings Corporation for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 024 163. Panasonic sought to classify certain information related to ongoing FRAND license negotiations with the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) as strictly confidential, including grey-highlighted submissions and exhibits labeled 'Anlagen KAP FRAND'. The defendants requested that access to such confidential information be restricted to specific named persons. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann of the Local Chamber Munich.
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.