Litigation
374 litigation decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
374 cases | Page 2 of 13
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation following a 4 April 2025 order requiring the three Meril defendants to jointly and severally bear the costs of the proceedings. Edwards sought reimbursement of EUR 774,696.49 in costs of representation, court fees, travel expenses, and other costs, while Meril contested the necessity and proportionality of various travel-related expenses. The Local Division Munich, through Judge-Rapporteur Dr. Matthias Zigann, held that UPC representatives have broad discretion in determining how to effectively represent their parties, and that the disputed travel costs were marginal relative to the overall costs, warranting award at the judge's discretion.
AX Wireless, LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, and Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
AX Wireless, LLC filed a patent infringement action against four Xiaomi entities before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3072324. The Defendants requested an extension and alignment of procedural deadlines for all four Defendants so that a consolidated defence could be filed, and the Claimant consented. The Court granted the request, aligning the deadlines for all Defendants.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o. and Others
This decision concerns the withdrawal of a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 2 387 547 before the Local Chamber Munich. The defendants, who had filed a counterclaim for revocation against Brita SE's patent infringement action, applied to withdraw their counterclaim after the chamber had already issued its decision but before the appeal deadline expired. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and held that each party bears its own costs.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTeK group companies for infringement of European Patent EP 3 972 309 B1, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent null and void for lack of disclosure of origin (the subject matter extending beyond the content of the earlier parent application), dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1, which relates to metal sintering preparations for connecting electronic components. The court maintained the patent in amended form, partially allowing the revocation counterclaim, but dismissed the infringement action. Costs were split 40% to the defendant and 60% to the plaintiff.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTek group companies for infringement of European patent EP 3 972 309, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich found that claims 1 and 11 of the patent lacked sufficient disclosure in the earlier parent application, declared those claims invalid, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1 relating to metal sintering preparations for connecting components in electronics. The plaintiff (Heraeus Electronics) brought an infringement action against the defendant (Vibrantz GmbH), while the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court partially revoked the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and addressed the binding effect of a prior final judgment from the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) that had maintained the German part of the patent in amended form.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. a.o. v.Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z.o.o.
The defendants in a patent infringement action brought by Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z.o.o. before the Local Division Munich requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 323 RoP. The claimant agreed to the change, and the President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language of proceedings changed to English, the language in which the patent EP2622601 was granted.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, following the second interim conference in four consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants are generic pharmaceutical companies from four groups: Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva. The order addresses procedural matters including the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and rulings on the admissibility of late-filed evidence.
Sanofi SA and others v.Accord Healthcare and others
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, concerning four consolidated infringement actions and counterclaims related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, sets out the schedule and procedural arrangements for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, addresses expert testimony, and rules on the admissibility of late-filed evidence. The patent was upheld by the EPO Board of Appeal at an oral hearing on 2–4 June 2025, with written reasons pending.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466. The Presiding Judge confirmed that expert testimony from two party experts would be heard at the oral hearing scheduled for 14-17 October 2025, addressing questions about the Phase III TROPIC study and reasonable expectation of success. The order summons the party experts and sets out the schedule, structure, and procedural framework for their testimony.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning four consolidated infringement actions relating to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, addresses the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and various evidentiary rulings including the rejection of a late-filed affidavit by Zentiva.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Ecovacs Home Service Robotics Co., Ltd., ECOVACS Europe GmbH, ECOVACS France S.a.r.l., and ECOVACS Robotics Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 494 446. Defendant 2 (ECOVACS Europe GmbH) sought a two-month extension of its deadline to file a statement of defense and counterclaim for invalidity, and an extension of its Preliminary Objection deadline, to unify the procedural timetable with the other three defendants who had not yet been served. The court rejected the application, finding that Defendant 2 did not claim it needed more time for its defense but only sought procedural simplification, and that the interest in procedural unification did not outweigh the claimant's interest in proceeding without delay.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning EP 2 661 133. Defendant 5 (Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) requested a unified deadline regime for all defendants, including a two-week extension of the reply and rejoinder deadlines to account for Christmas and Easter holidays. The court granted the application, noting that service proofs were still pending for several defendants.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA & IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Belparts Group N.V. filed an application under Rule 302.3 of the Rules of Procedure seeking consolidation of its infringement action pending before the Local Division Munich with a counterclaim for infringement pending before the Central Division Paris, both based on European patent EP 3 812 870. Despite the defendants' consent, the Presiding Judge dismissed the application, holding that the statutory prerequisite of proceedings being before the same local, regional, or central division was not satisfied.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 385 739. Defendant Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH requested a uniform deadline regime for all defendants and a two-week extension of the replication and duplication deadlines to account for Christmas and Easter holidays. The court granted the application, noting that service proofs for several defendants were still outstanding and reserving the right to subsequently shorten deadlines if representation of the remaining defendants is not promptly assumed.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., and Energy3000 solar GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, in which the claimants (Jinko entities) and the defendants (LONGi entities and others) jointly requested a stay of both the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation. The court granted the stay because the parties were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive settlement agreement, ordering the claimants to notify the court of the outcome within six months.
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH v.Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action and associated revocation counterclaim regarding European Patent EP 2 133 289. The plaintiff requested a six-day extension of its deadline for filing its infringement reply, response to the revocation counterclaim, and any patent amendment request, citing mutual vacation absences and competing deadlines. The court partially granted the request, extending the deadline only to September 5, 2025, rather than the requested September 9, 2025, to avoid subsequent deadlines falling on a weekend and conflicting with the scheduled interim hearing.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1, brought by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek. The court granted Defendant 2's (MediaTek Germany GmbH) application for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP, ordering Huawei to provide security of €150,000 within six weeks, finding that Huawei's declaration regarding service on its German subsidiary did not adequately address enforcement concerns in China.
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB (Application for Access to Register) – NEC Corporation v.TCL Entities (EP 2 645 714)
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB, a law firm, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings between NEC Corporation and various TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. NEC opposed the request, arguing it was not a reasoned request and that the stated educational purpose was pretexted. The Local Division Munich partially granted the request, allowing access to specific written pleadings in redacted versions, with personal data redacted and appendices to be provided upon further request.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Others
The Claimant filed an infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1 before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant and Defendants 1 to 4 jointly requested a stay of proceedings due to ongoing settlement negotiations, and the Claimant also sought a stay regarding Defendant 5. The Court granted the stay under Rules 295(d) and 295(m) RoP, extended the time limit for filing the Statement of defence to five months, and ordered the parties to inform the Court if a settlement is reached.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection by Qualcomm defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 552 669. The court held that the withdrawal of an opt-out from the court's exclusive competence was effective, even though the UPC representative who filed the withdrawal application was neither the patent proprietor nor a registered representative in the national patent registers. The court ruled that a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the patent had been validly opted out and the withdrawal of the opt-out was ineffective due to lack of proper authorization of the UPC representative who filed it. The court held that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective, as a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective, and such lack of representation cannot be raised as a preliminary objection.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants challenging the Court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 875 683. The court held that the opt-out from the Court's exclusive competence had been effectively withdrawn on 20 December 2023 by a registered UPC representative, and that the lack of a written mandate or power of attorney could not be invoked as a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1(a) RoP.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court decided a combined infringement action and revocation counterclaim concerning European Patent EP 2 387 547 B1, which relates to a valve actuation device for a liquid treatment container. The court found that the patent was valid in amended form (auxiliary requests) and that the defendants' replacement filter cartridges infringed the patent, while rejecting the main revocation request. Injunctive relief, information orders, and damages were granted in modified form, with costs split 50/50 for the infringement action and 90/10 against the revocation counterclaim.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1, relating to MediaTek's 5G-capable Dimensity series chips. The order addresses Huawei's request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for confidentiality protection of its submission dated 15.08.2025, made in response to MediaTek Germany GmbH's request for production of license agreements under Rule 190. The court granted partial confidentiality protection, classifying certain information as confidential and strictly confidential, and restricted access to specified named persons on the defendant's side.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH and MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek regarding 5G-capable Dimensity series chips. The order addresses Huawei's application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect the confidentiality of information contained in its submissions regarding license agreements and licensing negotiations. The court classified certain information as confidential and strictly confidential, restricted access to a limited number of named persons on the defendant side, and declined to decide on certain further requests at that stage.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd., Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd., Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Benia New Material Technology Co., Ltd.
Procedural order of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the separation of infringement proceedings. The court ordered the separation of proceedings against Defendants 1 and 2 from those against Defendants 3 and 4, as service had been effected on Defendants 1 and 2 but not yet on Defendants 3 and 4, making it unreasonable to delay the proceedings against the served defendants.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and Others v.Innovative Sonic Corporation (Application No. APP_33670/2025)
The defendants in a patent infringement action before the Munich Local Division of the UPC applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2765731 was granted. The claimant, Innovative Sonic Corporation, opposed the change. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, and dismissed the claimant's alternative request for oral hearings to be held in German.
Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V. v.Ex Parte
Procedural Order
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.