Granted
54 granted decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Granted Decisions
54 cases | Page 1 of 2
Bobst Manchester Limited v.Nordmeccanica S.p.A.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Nordmeccanica S.p.A. and Bobst Manchester Limited regarding EP3067437. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, granting the request to change the language from German to English. The ruling emphasized that when assessing fairness for a language change, the position of the defendant—who faces strict deadlines and must prepare its defense—is given decisive weight if interests are balanced.
Nagravision Sàrl v.Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Pinterest and Nagravision. The Court granted the request to change the language from German to English, aligning it with the language of the patent grant and the common working language of the multinational Defendants. This ruling emphasizes that operational efficiency and internal coordination needs of large corporate defendants can override the local language preference of a claimant in UPC proceedings.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC Local Division ruling addresses a procedural challenge concerning cost determination deadlines in complex patent litigation. The court affirmed that parties can seek reinstatement (Wiedereinsetzung) under Rule 320 if they miss the deadline for filing a cost allocation request, provided there are justifiable reasons. This decision provides significant relief to litigants facing strict procedural timelines, emphasizing judicial flexibility and fairness over rigid adherence to deadlines in complex financial matters.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc, TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Entreprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V, TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by TP-Link and Lianzhou to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving Huawei. The court balanced the interests of both parties, concluding that the Defendants' structural disadvantage in preparing their defense outweighed the Claimant's preference for the local language. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to procedural fairness and efficiency in complex international disputes.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the composition of a confidentiality club in an ongoing infringement/revocation action involving Solvay Specialty Polymers and Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical. The Court confirmed the initial order, upholding the inclusion of non-employee experts from the claimant's economic unit. The ruling clarifies that access to confidential information is not strictly limited to direct employees, significantly broadening who can be included for effective litigation.
FAST IP, LLC v.Skechers USA Deutschland GmbH; Skechers S.a.r.l; Skechers U.S.A., Inc.; Skechers EDC SPRL; Skechers USA Italia Srl; Skechers USA France SAS (collectively, Skechers)
This procedural decision addressed an application to change the language of proceedings in a UPC infringement case from German to English. The Court sided with the defendants, Skechers, who argued that their global corporate structure and the patent's original grant language favored English. The ruling reinforces the principle that the defendant's position is decisive when assessing fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA, even if the claimant initially chose a different official language.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing a patent infringement action when parties reach an out-of-court settlement. The Court permitted Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong to withdraw its claim against LONGi Solar and related entities, provided no party had a legitimate interest in the merits of the case. Furthermore, the Claimant was granted reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid.
AX Wireless, LLC v.Xiaomi Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a request by the defendants to align and extend key deadlines in the case against AX Wireless, LLC. The court found that harmonizing the timelines for all parties, including those served internationally, would significantly improve case management efficiency. This decision underscores the Court's focus on practical, efficient procedural handling while respecting statutory requirements.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH a.o.
In this cost decision case, the UPC Local Division Munich ruled in favor of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH and its affiliates. The court awarded a substantial sum of EUR 771,649.56 to cover Edwards' legal costs incurred during the proceedings related to EP patent 3669828. The ruling emphasized that given the overall complexity of the case, the judge-rapporteur has broad discretion and may award costs even if specific disputed elements (like travel details) are marginal.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation; Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.; Xiaomi Inc.; Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.; Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH; Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S.; Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.; Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB; Romania Xiaomi Communication Technology S.R.L.
In a procedural order within the UPC case UPC_CFI_609/2025, UERAN Technology LLC (Claimant) is pursuing infringement against various Xiaomi entities. The court granted a motion filed by one of the defendants, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, to establish a unified deadline regime for all parties involved in the litigation. This ruling streamlines the complex procedural landscape, addressing issues related to service and seasonal delays, which is crucial for efficient UPC case management.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
In this procedural order within the UPC infringement case (UPC_CFI_610/2025), UERAN Technology LLC successfully petitioned for a unified and streamlined timeline. The court granted the request, which aimed to prevent delays caused by incomplete service of process on all defendants, including those in China. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility and party cooperation as key drivers for efficient litigation within the UPC framework.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning a patent infringement case, the court addressed a motion by MediaTek Germany GmbH to require cost security from Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering Huawei to deposit €150,000 as security for legal costs. This ruling highlights the UPC's approach to balancing procedural fairness and financial risk when dealing with international parties, particularly those based outside the EU/EEA.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving major mobile technology players. The Court granted the request to switch from German to English, aligning with the patent's granted language. This ruling emphasizes that fairness and the operational realities of multinational defendants—who communicate internationally in English—must be weighed heavily against local court preferences.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses an applicant's request for access to case files related to a patent infringement and revocation proceedings involving EP 1 770 912 B1. The court found that the applicant had a legitimate interest in reviewing the historical legal and technical arguments, particularly since the main litigation was already concluded. Access was granted to all relevant documents from the associated procedures (infringement, counterclaim for invalidity, and amendment application), with necessary redactions applied.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG; Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH; Renault S.A.S.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, based on the patent's grant language. The court ruled in favor of the defendants (Renault), establishing that the defendant's position must prevail when balancing interests under Art. 49(5) UPCA. This reinforces the principle that while fairness is key, the claimant's initial choice and the procedural context heavily influence the outcome.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd's request to classify specific documents and information shared during infringement proceedings against MediaTek Germany GmbH as confidential trade secrets. The court affirmed that parties can successfully invoke Art. 58 EPC and Rule 262A VerfO to protect sensitive business information from public disclosure. This decision reinforces the robust protection of trade secrets within UPC litigation, mandating confidentiality not only for public access but also for all participants involved in the case.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for security for costs. The court ruled in favor of Emboline, Inc., requiring AorticLab srl to provide €200,000 in security. This decision highlights that when a party themselves raises concerns about insolvency following an injunction, it satisfies the legal requirement for granting security for costs under the UPC Agreement.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural UPC case concerning a patent infringement action involving EP 2 401 365, the Court addressed the request for security for costs. The Defendants successfully convinced the Court to order the Claimant to provide EUR 1.5 million in security, which was equally distributed between two groups of defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer). Crucially, while granting the security requirement, the Court dismissed the premature demand for a decision by default under Rule 355 RoP, maintaining procedural integrity.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a critical procedural issue regarding the synchronization of proceedings between the Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Office. The claimant successfully sought permission to amend its infringement claims, incorporating changes made during EPO opposition proceedings and introducing a newly discovered infringing product. The court emphasized that true synchronization requires the ability to translate EPO amendments into actionable claim versions within the UPC action, setting important procedural boundaries for patent litigation practitioners.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences sought protection for sensitive financial details related to its costs in an ongoing infringement action. The UPC Local Division Munich granted the request under Rule 262.2 RoP, recognizing that while proceedings are generally public, there is a legitimate interest in keeping negotiation fees and expert invoices confidential. This decision provides a crucial procedural safeguard for parties involved in complex litigation, balancing transparency with commercial sensitivity.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Promosome LLC's request to classify specific license agreement exhibits as confidential against the BioNTech/Pfizer consortium. This decision reinforces the protection of trade secrets and sensitive commercial information within the UPC framework. The Court meticulously defined who could access the documents, ensuring that confidentiality obligations extend beyond the conclusion of the proceedings.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted Promosome LLC's request to classify specific exhibits (VB 4a and VB 4b), which contain confidential license agreement terms between the parties, as confidential. The ruling establishes strict limitations on who can access this sensitive information, restricting it primarily to authorized legal representatives and their support staff. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting trade secrets within ongoing infringement actions.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
In this UPC costs case (UPC_CFI_2/2023), the court addressed procedural issues surrounding cost allocation following a summary proceeding on interim measures. The claimants successfully argued for the reimbursement of substantial legal fees (€337,431.50). Crucially, the decision established clear rules regarding the finality of costs determined in summary proceedings and reinforced strict adherence to filing deadlines under Rule 151 EPGVerfO. This ruling provides important guidance on how cost claims must be structured and pursued within the UPC framework.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
In a procedural ruling within the UPC Local Division, the court addressed Chainzone Technology's request for access to case files related to EP2643717. Despite initial delays and considerations regarding ongoing proceedings, the court ultimately granted the requested file access. This decision underscores the importance of transparency in UPC proceedings, even when preliminary measures like evidence preservation are involved.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH
This UPC case focused on procedural jurisdiction and admissibility rather than the merits of infringement. The claimant, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, filed an infringement suit in Munich against S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International and Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH regarding patent EP 3 685 783. The respondents argued that the case was inadmissible because a similar action was pending elsewhere under Article 33(2) EPC. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, confirming Munich's jurisdiction by clarifying that an appeal does not constitute a 'case pending before another local chamber.'
SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a cost assessment application filed by SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH against Tiroler Rohre GmbH following the withdrawal of an interim measures request. The court found the claim admissible and granted the recovery of costs for the first instance, totaling 84,033.76 EUR. While the respondent argued that the fees were excessive, the court allowed minor reductions based on specific objections but ultimately upheld the majority of the claimed expenses.
SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This UPC decision concerns a cost assessment application following the withdrawal of an interim measure request. The court found the claim admissible and necessary, establishing that costs incurred by the claimant were recoverable. Although the respondent successfully argued for reductions in specific time entries due to lack of plausibility, the overall reimbursement amount was significantly upheld.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd.
Qualcomm Incorporated initiated a patent infringement action against several mobile technology companies, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd. However, before any substantive decision was reached, Qualcomm filed a request to withdraw the suit due to reaching a settlement with Defendant 1. The UPC Local Division Munich permitted this withdrawal, declaring the proceedings closed. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding voluntary withdrawal and clarifies the rules governing court fee reimbursement in such scenarios.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision from the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) concerns a procedural application filed by a patent attorney seeking public access to case documents. The court granted this request, specifically allowing viewing of materials related to the counterclaim for revocation (CC_581177/2023). This ruling highlights the UPC's commitment to transparency while maintaining strict boundaries regarding which files are accessible.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed the procedural consequences of withdrawing counterclaims for both patent revocation and a FRAND license offer. The Court permitted the withdrawals, declaring the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling clarified that even though a FRAND license offer counterclaim is related to the main infringement action, it constitutes an independent proceeding requiring court fees, thereby preventing a full refund upon withdrawal.
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.