Litigation
374 litigation decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
374 cases | Page 11 of 13
Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages and parallel US proceedings. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications as manifestly unfounded, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the lack of jurisdiction issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC (NST) brought an infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 against Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments entities. The defendants filed preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP and applications under rule 361 RoP seeking dismissal on grounds including invalid opt-out withdrawal, lack of standing, overly broad infringement allegations, and lack of jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 preliminary objections, and deferred certain jurisdictional questions to the main proceeding.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
Huawei sued NETGEAR entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei asserted is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought a production order against itself to introduce a Wi-Fi patent portfolio license agreement with Amazon (dated 5 March 2024) into the proceedings, together with confidentiality protection for its contents. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the provisional production and confidentiality orders and additionally allowed the use of the license agreement and its confidential information in a related parallel proceeding concerning EP 3 678 321.
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, NST's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's authority over UK-related damages claims. The court dismissed the rule 361 RoP requests and partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, deferring certain jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, Audi AG
Network System Technologies LLC (NST) brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 against Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Deutschland, Volkswagen, and Audi. The defendants filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 RoP and applications under Rule 361 RoP, challenging jurisdiction (alleging invalid opt-out withdrawal), NST's standing, the broad scope of allegedly infringing embodiments, and the Court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the Rule 361 applications as manifestly unfounded and partially dismissed the Rule 19 preliminary objections, deferring the residual jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division in Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The defendants challenged the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages claims. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH seeking dismissal of an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The defendants raised issues including invalid opt-out withdrawal, lack of standing, overly broad infringement allegations, and lack of jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications as manifestly unfounded, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the lack of jurisdiction issues to the main proceeding.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning standard-essential patents (SEPs) for 3G and 4G standards. The court addressed competing requests from both parties for the production of license agreement evidence relevant to determining whether the plaintiff's licensing demands were FRAND. The court ordered mutual production of certain 4G SEP license agreements while reserving decisions on further requests and confidentiality matters.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Huawei sued Netgear entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which is essential for the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Netgear raised an exhaustion defense based on a Qualcomm chip in some accused embodiments and sought production of Huawei's August 2020 license agreement with Qualcomm. The Local Chamber Munich ordered Huawei to produce the agreement with confidentiality protections and a daily coercive fine of up to €20,000, while rejecting the remaining requests of both parties.
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based company, under Article 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division in Munich dismissed the applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties or insolvency risk, and that NST's non-EU domicile could not serve as a basis for ordering security.
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The defendants in a UPC patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based SME. The Local Division Munich dismissed all three applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of difficulties in enforcing a cost order in the US or of NST's insolvency, and that NST's patent portfolio constituted seizable intangible assets.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG and Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The defendants in a UPC patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based SME. The Local Division Munich dismissed the applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties in the US or of NST's insolvency, and that NST's patent portfolio constituted seizable intangible assets.
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments entities) sought security for legal costs from the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based SME, under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division in Munich dismissed all three applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties or insolvency risk, and that NST's patent portfolio constituted seizable intangible assets.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG and Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based company, under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division in Munich dismissed the applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties or insolvency risk, and that NST's patent portfolio acquired from Philips constituted valuable assets that could satisfy any cost order.
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for an order requiring the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), to provide security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division in Munich dismissed the applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties or insolvency risk, and that NST's non-EU domicile could not serve as a basis for requiring security.
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for an order requiring the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), to provide security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division in Munich dismissed all three applications, finding that the defendants had failed to provide concrete evidence of difficulties in enforcing a cost order against NST in the United States, and that NST's patent portfolio acquired from Philips constituted seizable intangible assets.
Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement action) applied for security for legal costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST), the Plaintiff, under Article 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Defendants argued that NST, a US-based SME with no physical assets, posed an enforcement risk for any future cost order. The Local Division Munich dismissed all three applications, finding that the Defendants had failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties in the US or of NST's insolvency risk, and that ordering security would unduly interfere with NST's right to effective remedy as an SME.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG and Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The defendants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for security for legal costs against the plaintiff Network System Technologies LLC (NST) under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP in a patent infringement action concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The Local Division in Munich dismissed the applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of difficulties in enforcing a cost order in the United States or of NST's insolvency, and that NST's patent portfolio acquired from Philips constituted seizable intangible assets.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding a Rule 9.3 RoP extension request in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 669 828. The defendants requested a three-week extension of the deadline to file their Statement of Defence, citing the recent change of language of proceedings from German to English. The court rejected the extension request, finding that the defendants failed to substantiate why the one-month period between the language change and the filing deadline was insufficient.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 838 002. The claimant (Avago) sued the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) for patent infringement, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court ordered that the main infringement action and both revocation counterclaims be heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, rejecting the option of referral to the Central Division since the claimant did not consent.
Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc. v.Ex Parte
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 15 May 2024 in case UPC_CFI_62/2023. The order schedules an interim hearing for 11 September 2024 and postpones the oral hearing from 11 July 2024 to 23 October 2024, both to be held in Munich.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315, held by Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. Following an oral hearing on 30 January 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to have the settlement confirmed. The court confirmed the settlement, issued a cost decision based on the parties' agreement, and ordered that the details of the settlement and cost arrangement be treated as confidential.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH & Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 646 825. The plaintiff Edwards Lifesciences Corporation initially requested that a scheduled interim hearing be conducted in person rather than by video conference, and that the court provide simultaneous German-to-English interpretation. After the presiding judge indicated both requests would likely be denied, the plaintiff withdrew both requests and agreed to the video conference format and to jointly retain a private interpreter with the defendants under Rule 109.4 of the Rules of Procedure, splitting the costs equally.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (relating to a metal sintering preparation). The court addressed multiple procedural applications, including a review of a prior refusal to allow amendment for indirect infringement of a process claim, and requests by both parties to extend the proceedings to Romania following its accession to the UPC Agreement on September 1, 2024. The court granted the amendments, revised its prior order, set a new briefing schedule, increased the dispute value to €1.25 million each, and allowed appeal.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 611 989 (and EP 3 678 321). The court addressed whether to change the procedural language from German to English or to conduct the oral hearing in English. The court ordered that the procedural language remain German, but that the oral hearing and interim hearing be conducted in English based on the flexibility principles in Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Procedure.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
Unified Patent Court decision.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.