Litigation
14 litigation decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
14 cases | Page 1 of 1
OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC filed an application for provisional measures against MGI entities alleging infringement of four European patents relating to 'Cyclone Devices'. After the judge-rapporteur set a deadline of 24 July 2026 for MGI to file its objection, Respondent 1 (MGI TECH GmbH) sought an extension of that deadline. The judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, finding that more than two weeks from service was sufficient given the respondents' prior awareness of the patents from parallel Australian proceedings and Oxford's withdrawal of two of the four patents.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-26) under reference UPC_0F52BA837A, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation appeared in dispute with Meril Gmbh concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
The defendants applied under Rule 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (established in Taiwan), to provide security for costs of the proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 346 616. The Local Division Munich held that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, as neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provides certainty for such enforcement. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within six weeks, but rejected the request for security concerning a counterclaim for revocation that had not yet been filed.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Acer Inc. a.o.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed an infringement action against Acer entities regarding European Patent EP 2 661 892, while the Acer parties filed a counterclaim for revocation of the same patent. Both parties subsequently sought to withdraw their respective claims and requests for partial refund of court fees. The Local Chamber Munich allowed the withdrawals of both the main infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered partial refunds of court fees in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC a.o.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) sought discretionary review of a Munich Local Division order requiring it to provide security for costs in its patent infringement action against Motorola Mobility entities and Lenovo. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, finding it admissible but not meritorious, as ASC failed to demonstrate that the impugned order was manifestly erroneous.
Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v.VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between two competitors in the food processing machinery market. The plaintiff, Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG, is the registered proprietor of European Patent No. 3 106 035 relating to a receiving basket for a lifting device and a method for loading a food processing machine. The defendant, VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH, manufactures and distributes vacuum filling machines designated 'DPnx' and 'HPnx' featuring a receiving basket for a trolley that allegedly infringes the plaintiff's patent. The patent, filed on 19 June 2015 and granted on 19 September 2018, had previously survived an opposition before the EPO Board of Appeal.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-11) under reference UPC_0805AED25C, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
This case involves Nokia Technologies Oy as the plaintiff and counter-defendant against a large group of defendants and counter-plaintiffs associated with the Geely automotive group, including Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, Geely Automobile Holdings, multiple Lynk & Co sales entities across Europe, Zeekr entities, and Lotus Cars entities. The proceedings were filed before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court under case numbers UPC_CFI_661/2025 and UPC_CFI_236/2026. The decision was issued on June 1, 2026, though the substantive reasoning and operative ruling are not contained in the provided text excerpt.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-19) under reference UPC_7EEE0670ED, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in consolidated proceedings (CFI_196/2025 and CFI_665/2025) concerning European patent EP 2 403 266. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 30 April 2026, addressing case management matters including the value of proceedings, exhibit submissions, confidentiality, limitation of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and scheduling of the oral hearing for 23 July 2026.
Miele & Cie. KG v.Melitta Europa GmbH & Co. KG
Miele filed an application for provisional measures against Melitta before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of EP 4 676 295 B1 through Melitta's 'SWIRL M60' vacuum cleaner filter bags. After the court indicated that the patent's validity appeared compromised by prior art (DE 3403121 A1), Miele withdrew its application. The court allowed the withdrawal, ordered Miele to reimburse Melitta's costs, but granted Miele a 50% refund of court fees (€7,300) beca
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-23) under reference UPC_92A1E8747E, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH a.o.
The plaintiff, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, holder of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1 concerning an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies, sued Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International for infringement relating to their 'Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber' product. The defendants had filed an opposition before the European Patent Office seeking full revocation of the patent-in-suit. The Local Chamber Munich addressed whether to stay proceedings under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure, given that the EPO Opposition Division had revoked the patent between the oral hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date.
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
This order concerns the defendant's second request to postpone the oral hearing date in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 251 983. The Local Chamber Munich had proposed three hearing dates on February 13, 2026; the plaintiff responded within the deadline, but the defendant did not. The court set December 8, 2026 as the hearing date, which the defendant subsequently confirmed as its preferred date, before filing a second postponement request. The court rejected the request, holding that once a date is agreed upon, alternative dates are no longer reserved and postponement requires substantial grounds submitted with the request.
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.