Denied
68 denied decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Denied Decisions
68 cases | Page 1 of 3
BFexaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court dismissed the infringement claim against NVIDIA regarding EP 3 743 812. The patent relates to dynamic resource allocation in heterogeneous computing systems. While the main infringement suit failed, the defendant's counterclaim for revocation was not addressed because the condition precedent (the failure of the infringement action) was met. This case reinforces key procedural principles regarding claim construction and contingent counterclaims within the UPC framework.
BFexaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation
In this complex UPC case involving BFexaQC AG against NVIDIA Corporation, the court addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 743 812, which covers dynamic resource allocation in heterogeneous computing systems. Beyond the merits, the decision provided important procedural guidance regarding the non-binding nature of applicant statements during the grant phase and the conditions under which a conditional counterclaim for revocation can be handled.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent EP 1 552 669 in France and Germany. The revocation followed the dismissal of the infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC against Qualcomm subsidiaries. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively prove its case, allowing the Defendants' counterclaim for revocation to succeed. This decision underscores the high burden of proof required in UPC infringement proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated
In this significant UPC decision, Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement suit against Qualcomm regarding EP 1 552 669. However, the Defendants successfully mounted a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich ultimately revoked the patent in France and Germany, dismissing the infringement action entirely. This case underscores the high burden of proof required by claimants to conclusively demonstrate patent infringement before the UPC.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought an injunction against Niche Biomedical, Inc., alleging infringement of its patent EP 3 421 081 B1 concerning neuromodulation systems. The Munich Local Division ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The court emphasized that in such proceedings, attempts to modify claims to address validity doubts are typically rejected, highlighting a strict standard for injunctive relief. This decision underscores the high bar required for patentees seeking urgent interim protection under the UPC.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a mixed action before the UPC, including an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation against Vibrantz GmbH concerning EP 3 215 288. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement lawsuit and rejected all other pending applications. While the core dispute involved technical aspects of metal sintering preparations used in electronics, the decision also touched upon complex procedural issues regarding the binding effect of national invalidity judgments across various jurisdictions.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC brought an infringement action against ASUSTek and its subsidiaries regarding the use of their 5G-enabled devices, alleging that these products utilized technology covered by EP 3 972 309. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. Crucially, the court also declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent invalid for a wide range of UPC member states, providing a significant defense for the defendants.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a combined infringement and revocation action against Vibrantz GmbH concerning the European Patent EP 3 215 288, which covers metal sintering preparations used in electronics. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the infringement claim and rejected all other related applications. Despite the loss for the claimant, the decision provided important commentary on how national law governs the binding effect of prior national revocation judgments within the UPC framework.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc, ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC brought an infringement action against ASUSTek-affiliated companies regarding their 5G products, alleging that the devices utilized technology covered by EP 3 972 309. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. Crucially, the court also declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent invalid in numerous UPC member states, providing a dual victory for the defendants.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Ecovacs Home Service Robotics Co.,Ltd.
In this procedural order concerning a patent infringement case involving Ecovacs and Papst Licensing, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for deadline extensions by one of the defendants. The court ultimately rejected the motion, finding that the defendant's primary motivation was procedural simplification rather than an urgent need to prepare its defense. This decision highlights the Court's focus on balancing procedural efficiency with the claimant's interests in maintaining timely proceedings.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA; IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Belparts Group N.V. sought to consolidate its current infringement action with a parallel counterclaim pending before the Central Division Paris, arguing for consistent application of UPC law. Although IMI consented to the consolidation, the Local Division Munich dismissed the request. The Court found that since the proceedings were lodged in different divisions (Local vs. Central), the statutory requirement under R. 302.3 RoP was not satisfied.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm for patent infringement concerning EP 1 552 669. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and had not been properly withdrawn, thus stripping the UPC of jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the formal requirements for withdrawing an opt-out. The ruling confirms that proper registration and adherence to procedural rules are sufficient, even without explicit proof of a power of attorney from the proprietor.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 552 399. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an opt-out had not been validly withdrawn, thereby limiting the Court's jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the formal requirements of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. This ruling confirms that proper registration and adherence to procedural rules are sufficient for withdrawal, even without explicit proof of representation authority.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues concerning evidence preservation and deadlines under Rule 198.1 EPGVerfO. The respondent sought to nullify an order because they argued that a change in the deadline's starting point constituted an impermissible extension of time. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that judicial discretion allows for adjusting the start date when expert reports are delayed. This ruling confirms the flexibility of procedural rules to ensure fair access to evidence.
BioNTech SE v.Promosome LLC
This UPC Order addressed a request for protection of confidential information filed by the BioNTech group against Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute in an infringement action. The Court found that the requested confidentiality protections were redundant because the relevant documents and information were already covered by a pre-existing Confidentiality Order from March 2025. This decision reinforces the principle that existing protective measures within the UPC framework remain valid even if new applications are filed.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
In this procedural ruling, Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. sought an extension of its deadline to respond to the defendants' submissions due to technical issues with the UPC CMS. The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected the request, finding that Lenovo failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest for the extension. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural rules within the UPC framework.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion concerning the requirement for a third-party intervenor to provide a financial security deposit in an infringement case. The claimant sought to compel Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., who was involved as a third-party intervener, to post EUR 169,000.00. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that while the intervener is treated like a party for cost purposes, ordering security deposits in such circumstances is not warranted.
Sanofi SA v.Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order addressed a dispute between Sanofi and Zentiva regarding the timeline and scope of written submissions in an infringement action concerning EP patent 2 493 466. Zentiva sought to amend the case management schedule, arguing that the existing deadlines were insufficient or unclear. The UPC Panel dismissed these requests, upholding the judge-rapporteur's procedural order. This decision reinforces the strict application of the Rules of Procedure in managing complex infringement litigation within the UPC.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
In a significant decision, the Munich Local Court dismissed Tiroler Rohre GmbH's infringement claim against SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH regarding driving tips (ram spikes). The court accepted the defendants' technical arguments, specifically that the alleged 'ledge' was not free-standing and that the contact surface was not flat as required by the patent claims. This ruling underscores the importance of precise claim construction in UPC litigation, particularly when dealing with functional or structural limitations.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a challenge by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH against an earlier order issued to preserve evidence and conduct inspections regarding patent EP 3 083 107. The court confirmed its initial ruling, finding that Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG had presented sufficient grounds for the preventive measures. Crucially, the court emphasized that the respondent's deliberate lack of cooperation in providing specific technical details justified the order, even if a direct risk of evidence destruction was not explicitly proven.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
Dolby International AB sought provisional measures at the UPC to prevent Roku, Inc. from pursuing Anti-Suit or Anti-Enforcement Injunctions in US courts related to the HEVC standard patent EP 3 490 258. The court ultimately denied Dolby's request for these protective measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate sufficient urgency and risk; otherwise, they may be liable for costs.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku, Inc.
In this UPC decision, Sun Patent Trust sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) against Roku, Inc., aiming to prevent Roku from pursuing related anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunctions in US courts. The court ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate a genuine risk of irreparable harm; here, the court found that the requested AASI was likely futile and risked prejudicing the claimant's rights without proper preliminary steps.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC procedural order addressed a request by Heraeus Electronics to extend its response deadline, citing the vacation of key members of its Confidentiality Club and delays in accessing confidential documents. The court corrected the start date for Heraeus's deadlines based on when access was actually granted (March 18, 2025). However, the court ultimately denied the request for further extensions, stating that personal vacations do not affect procedural timelines.
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 this UPC procedural order, Headwater Research LLC sought to separate the infringement case against one respondent (Beklagte zu 5) due to significant delays. The court ultimately denied this request, prioritizing process economy over the claimant's desire for a faster resolution. The ruling emphasized that since all parties are linked in the supply chain and address the same core issues, keeping them together prevents contradictory judgments.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al. (Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich rejected a request by major pharmaceutical companies (BioNTech and Pfizer group) to compel their opponent, Promosome LLC, to disclose detailed raw data from expert reports. The Defendants argued that they needed access to this data to properly defend against infringement claims related to mRNA technology for SARS-CoV-2. The Court ruled that the request lacked specificity regarding contested facts and reiterated that parties are generally free to determine their own supporting evidence.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al.
In this UPC case, Promosome LLC sought to compel BioNTech and its affiliates to produce detailed raw data and experimental methods used in an expert report related to patent infringement. The Defendants argued that access to this data was necessary for them to properly defend against the infringement claims. However, the Court rejected the request, emphasizing that the defendants failed to specify concrete facts or evidence they wished to contest. This decision reinforces the high threshold required for a Rule 190 request, even when made by a defendant.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance rejected Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH's request to amend its infringement action to include the Netherlands. The core issue was not patent validity or infringement itself, but whether the Claimant acted with due diligence after learning that the national part of EP 3 742 231 had been restored in the Netherlands. The Court found that the delay between becoming aware of the restoration and filing the amendment request was unreasonable, setting a clear precedent regarding procedural timeliness in UPC litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a dispute over the refund percentage for court fees following the withdrawal of patent infringement claims. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought an increase from 40% to 60%, arguing that they were not properly informed about the conclusion of written proceedings. The Court upheld the initial ruling, emphasizing that despite the complexity of the case, the established framework for fee refunds was maintained. This decision reinforces the court's discretion under Rule 370.9(e) EPGVerfO to limit refunds in cases where the judicial effort expended is deemed substantial.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the scope of fee refunds when patent litigation is withdrawn. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought a 60% refund of court costs after settling its infringement case against OPPO and OROPE, arguing the complexity warranted an 'exceptional' status under Rule 370.9(e). However, the Local Division upheld the initial ruling, limiting the refund to 40%. The judgment emphasizes that while complex cases generate high workloads, this factor alone is insufficient to override the general principle of proportional fee recovery based on the stage of proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, Panasonic Holdings Corporation challenged a lower court's ruling regarding the percentage of court fee refunds after withdrawing its infringement claims against Xiaomi and OPPO. Panasonic sought an increase from 40% to 60%, arguing that procedural timing was unclear. However, the Local Division upheld the original 40% refund, emphasizing that while the case was complex, the statutory rules governing fee reduction based on withdrawal timing must be strictly applied.
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.