Dismissed
29 dismissed decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Dismissed Decisions
29 cases | Page 1 of 1
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated
In this complex international patent dispute, Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement action against Qualcomm Incorporated concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399, which relates to integrated circuits and transaction methods. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement claim because the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its allegations during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the stringent burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is insufficient when a party bears the burden of proving infringement.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a significant ruling concerning network technology patents, the Local Division Munich dismissed the infringement claim brought by Network System Technologies LLC against Qualcomm Incorporated. The court found that the Claimant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding patent infringement during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the stringent evidentiary requirements placed on claimants in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is insufficient without conclusive factual substantiation.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In this complex international patent dispute involving Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC over EP 1 875 683, the UPC Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its allegations of infringement during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the high burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is sufficient when a claimant fails to present conclusive evidence.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a complex international patent dispute involving Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC, the UPC Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 1 875 683. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its claims during the oral hearing, despite arguments regarding evidence production under Rule 190 RoP. This decision highlights the high burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, particularly when asserting complex technical infringement.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
In this UPC case, Emboline, Inc. sued AorticLab srl for infringing a patent covering an embolic protection device. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the defendant's product did not meet all the requirements of the patented claims. Beyond the merits, the decision provided important procedural guidance on how dependent counterclaims are limited and how costs are allocated when certain intra-procedural conditions are not met.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
In this procedural case, the UPC Local Division allowed Brita SE to withdraw its counterclaim for revocation against EP 2 387 547. Although a decision on the revocation claim had previously been rendered by the Panel, the court ruled that withdrawal was permissible because no final judgment existed and the appeal period remained open. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust their litigation strategy even after initial rulings.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 602 692, the claimant (Phoenix Contact) voluntarily withdrew its infringement suit against the respondents. The court subsequently allowed the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation as well. This decision highlights that voluntary withdrawals can lead to the termination of proceedings and trigger specific rules regarding the refund of court fees, providing a clear procedural path for parties seeking an amicable resolution.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG to withdraw its infringement claim against Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH. This withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties as part of an out-of-court settlement. Although the merits were not decided, the court issued a detailed cost allocation, refunding fees to both sides based on the timing of the withdrawals.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most procedural applications, effectively closing related workflows. Crucially, despite dismissing the main cost decision, the Judge issued a specific protective measure, ordering both Edwards Lifesciences and Erik Krahbichler not to disclose Meril's marked confidential data.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH v.SOTRAS - S.R.L.
In this UPC case concerning EP 2 762 219, MANN+HUMMEL GmbH sought interim measures against SOTRAS - S.R.L. However, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to a request for withdrawal of the application. The Local Division allowed the withdrawal, confirming that no legitimate interest was shown by the respondent in having the case decided. Although the main action was dropped, MANN+HUMMEL successfully secured a refund of 60% of its court fees.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich allowed Hand Held Products, Inc. and Scandit AG to mutually withdraw their infringement claim and counterclaim concerning EP 3 866 051. The court formally terminated the proceedings based on this agreement. Crucially, the decision also addressed procedural fairness by ordering a partial refund of court fees for the defendant, setting an example for how timing issues affect financial outcomes in UPC litigation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed procedural applications related to costs and confidentiality in a case involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether the proceedings concerning confidential information should be stayed pending an appeal decision. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the request for a partial stay of cost proceedings, which triggered the closure of the related workflow regarding confidentiality.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Commuincation Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
In this UPC case, NEC Corporation initiated a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning EP 3 057 321. Before the written procedure concluded, the Claimant voluntarily withdrew the suit due to a contractual agreement reached with the Defendants. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed. Crucially, the court ruled that the claimant was entitled to a significant reimbursement of court fees (60%), setting a clear precedent for cost recovery in voluntary withdrawals.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Commuincation Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
In this UPC decision, NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its patent infringement action against several TCL entities before a final judgment was rendered. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling confirmed that even upon voluntary withdrawal, specific rules apply regarding court fee reimbursement, granting NEC 60% of the fees paid.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed both Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom (and affiliates) to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims regarding EP 4 087 195. The withdrawal was permitted because neither party demonstrated a legitimate interest in forcing the continuation of the litigation. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to terminate complex patent disputes by mutual consent, provided no vested interests are at stake.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to withdraw its infringement claim against Netgear and permitted Netgear to withdraw their revocation counterclaims regarding EP 3 611 989. The court confirmed that withdrawal was permissible because the prior decision had not yet attained legal force. This case highlights how parties can resolve complex UPC litigation through mutual agreement, leading to a procedural dismissal of the actions.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH; Netgear Inc.; Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to withdraw its infringement claim against Netgear and simultaneously accepted the withdrawal of Netgear's counterclaim for revocation. This decision reflects a common strategic resolution in complex patent litigation, where parties opt to terminate proceedings rather than proceed to a full trial. The court formalized the termination while granting a partial refund of court fees.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
In this UPC case, Netgear Deutschland GmbH and its affiliates successfully withdrew their infringement action against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The withdrawal was based on an agreement between the parties, leading to the termination of the proceedings. Although the core dispute was settled out of court, the claimant secured a partial refund of 40% of the paid court fees from the UPC.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC decision concerns the withdrawal of a counterclaim for invalidity filed by Tesla against Avago Technologies regarding EP 1 770 912. The court granted the request to withdraw, finding that since the action had not reached a final judgment and no legitimate interest was asserted by the claimant, the withdrawal was permissible under UPC Rules. Consequently, the entire proceeding was terminated.
Avago 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.
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.
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.
Tiroler 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.
Qufora A/S v.Manfred Sauer GmbH and Mr. Manfred Sauer
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendants (Manfred Sauer GmbH and Mr. Manfred Sauer) to waive translation requirements for several German-language documents in an infringement case against Qufora A/S. The Court ultimately dismissed the waiver request, emphasizing that while both parties had German-speaking representation, the panel itself lacked sufficient language skills regarding the original materials. Crucially, because the Applicants had already provided machine translations as a fallback measure, the procedural application was dismissed without further action.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag et al.
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division in Munich revoked EP 3 797 685 B1 during an infringement action brought by DexCom against Abbott. The patent covered communication systems for analyte monitoring devices, specifically glucose monitors like FreeStyle Libre 2. Because the patent was found to be invalid and subsequently revoked, the Court dismissed all claims of infringement. This case underscores the critical importance of concurrent revocation proceedings in UPC litigation.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
In a case concerning patent infringement related to extrusion technology, KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH successfully withdrew its lawsuit against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG after reaching an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Local Division accepted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings. Crucially, the court ruled that because the litigation was not yet fully concluded—due to pending issues like expert reports and parallel EPO appeal decisions—the claimant was entitled to a partial refund of their court fees.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the claimant (KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH) successfully withdrew its action against the respondent (TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG). The court accepted the withdrawal because both parties had reached an out-of-court settlement and the respondent consented to the claim's termination. Crucially, the court ruled that since the oral proceedings were not yet finalized—due to pending issues like expert reports or EPO appeal outcomes—the claimant was entitled to a partial refund of 20% of the court fees.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the disclosure of a confidential Qualcomm licensing agreement relevant to an ongoing Wi-Fi infringement case. Despite the court dismissing both sides' requests for mandatory disclosure, it issued comprehensive protective orders. These rulings emphasize the importance of balancing litigation needs with the protection of trade secrets in high-tech patent disputes.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril GmbH addressed requests for an in-person hearing and state-provided simultaneous interpretation. The claimant ultimately withdrew these demands, agreeing instead to a video conference with privately hired interpreters. The court closed the workstream, confirming that private arrangements are permissible under specific rules.
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.