Litigation
374 litigation decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
374 cases | Page 4 of 13
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected oppositions filed by the defendants challenging its jurisdiction in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court held that the plaintiff could supplementarily rely on Art. 33(1)(a) EPGÜ in response to the opposition, even though the original complaint cited only Art. 33(1)(b) EPGÜ, and that Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 EPGÜ extends jurisdiction to persons who neither committed infringement nor have their seat in the relevant contracting member state. The court found jurisdiction established based on alleged infringing acts in Germany and the involvement of Defendant 5 (Flextronics) as a logistics service provider, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 110 069. The defendants filed objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure challenging the jurisdiction of the Local Chamber Munich. The court rejected the objections, holding that the plaintiff could additionally rely on Art. 33(1)(a) EPGÜ even though it had originally cited only Art. 33(1)(b) EPGÜ, and that jurisdiction was established based on the alleged infringing activities of the defendants in Germany.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 110 072. The defendants filed oppositions under Rule 19.1 RoP challenging the jurisdiction of the Munich Local Chamber. The court rejected the oppositions, holding that the plaintiff could rely on Art. 33(1)(a) EPGÜ in addition to Art. 33(1)(b) EPGÜ, and that Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 EPGÜ constitutes an extension of jurisdiction to defendants who neither committed infringement nor have their seat in the relevant contracting member state.
Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd. v.Headwater Research LLC
Anordnung
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 3 742 231. The parties jointly requested a stay of the infringement and revocation proceedings, as well as the application to amend the patent, to facilitate pending settlement negotiations without the pressure of ongoing litigation. The court granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP until three months after the next oral proceedings of the Board of Appeal in the parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings (T0187/24.-3.4.03), and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing of 7 October 2025.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court found that SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH infringed EP 2 839 083 B9, owned by Tiroler Rohre GmbH, by manufacturing and selling pile tips (GS115, GS140, GS170). The court rejected the defendants' arguments that their products lacked a free-standing web, a flat support surface, or actual contact between the pile end and support surface, holding that the support surface only needs to be suitable for supporting the pile end. The court also upheld the validity of the patent in amended form and granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, information obligations, publication rights, and damages.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This case concerned an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 602 692, accompanied by a revocation counterclaim. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement claim and the defendants withdrew the revocation counterclaim. The court allowed both withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and addressed the refund of court fees, setting the value of the infringement claim at €750,000 and the revocation counterclaim at €1,125,000.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning Meril's applications under Rule 353 RoP for rectification of the court's decision of 4 April 2025 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 669 828 (titled 'Prosthetic Heart Valve'). The court granted rectification of five items (1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) relating to corrections of claim references, a date error, translation errors in operative orders, and the claims asserted, but dismissed the remaining three items (4, 5, and 6) as unfounded.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH – Intervention of Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717. The court granted Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd's application to intervene in support of the defendant Yunex GmbH, as neither party raised objections. The court also addressed the claimant's request for Shenzhen Dianming to provide security for costs of EUR 169,000, giving the intervener 10 days to respond and to file an intervention brief.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S and Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3 175 863. The order addresses the coordination of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation, setting key dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure. The panel also requested the appointment of a technically qualified judge in the field of biotechnology.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on June 2, 2025, in consolidated proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. Following an interim video hearing on May 28, 2025, the presiding judge set deadlines for the submission of consolidated formal requests, confirmed the date for the oral hearing on July 1, 2025, and fixed the dispute value at €3.125 million in total. The court also provided preliminary indications on the admissibility of the revocation counterclaim for Germany and on the scope of the defendant's prior submissions.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court reviewed an ex parte order for evidence preservation and inspection dated February 3, 2025, concerning European Patent EP 3 083 107. The respondent sought to set aside the order, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of patent infringement and had not proven a risk of evidence destruction. The court rejected all of the respondent's arguments, confirmed the original order, and ordered the respondent to bear the costs of the review proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku, Inc.
Sun Patent Trust sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) and Anti-Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AAEI) against Roku, Inc. before the Local Chamber Munich after Roku filed a US lawsuit seeking Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Injunctions. The court initially granted the interim measures ex parte, but upon Roku's request for review, found the application moot after Roku amended its US complaint and provided cease-and-desist declarations. The court ordered Roku to bear the costs, holding that a prior warning was unnecessary given Roku had already initiated court proceedings for an ASI/AEI.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This case concerns a review application by Roku, Inc. regarding an ex parte order granting Dolby International AB an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) and Anti-Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AAEI) before the Local Chamber Munich. The court declared the application for interim measures moot and the proceedings terminated, but held that Roku bore the costs because a prior cease-and-desist letter was unnecessary given Roku had already initiated US proceedings seeking Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Injunctions against Dolby.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA, IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance scheduling proceedings in an infringement action concerning European patent no. 3 812 870. The panel decided not to bifurcate the proceedings and will hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, setting an interim videoconference for 24 March 2026 and an in-person oral hearing in Munich for 18 June 2026.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215 before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court. Huawei sought an order to protect confidential information and trade secrets contained in its complaint. The court granted the request in part, classifying the grey-highlighted information and marked attachments as confidential and ordering all participants in the proceedings to treat them as such, while declining to impose access restrictions on the defendants themselves.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd requested that certain information in its complaint be classified as confidential and that all participants in the proceedings be obligated to maintain confidentiality, including after the proceedings conclude. The court granted the request, classifying the identified information as confidential and ordering that it be kept confidential by all persons involved in the proceedings.
Sanofi SA and Others v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. and Others (STADA Nordic ApS and Others)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel compounds for treating prostate cancer. The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, have brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur issued orders regarding the procedural schedule, including deadlines for rejoinders, closure of written procedure, interim conferences, and the oral hearing.
Sanofi SA and others v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. and others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer). The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, sought cease and desist orders against defendants (Accord Healthcare, STADAPHARM, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities) for their sales of CABAZITAXEL ACCORD in various UPC Member States. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the EPO Board of Appeal decision and filed revocation counterclaims. The judge-rapporteur declined to stay the proceedings and set out the further procedural timetable.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in four consolidated sets of patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for treating castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva generic pharmaceutical companies across various UPC member states. The order addresses preliminary objections, sets further procedural deadlines, and confirms dates for interim conferences and the oral hearing.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel for use in treating prostate cancer. The claimants, comprising multiple Sanofi entities, brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur ordered that preliminary objections be dealt with in the main proceedings and set out the schedule for the remaining written and oral procedure.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action relating to European patent n° 2 403 266. Samsung, as applicant, requested a uniform deadline for filing the Statement of Defence for all Defendants, citing that service had not yet been effected on Defendant 1 in Korea and that other Defendants had been served on different dates. The parties agreed to a virtual service date of 5 May 2025, and the Presiding Judge granted the request, setting the deadline for the Statement of Defence to 5 August 2025 for all Defendants uniformly.
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 of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European patent no. 4 372 829. The order addresses the service of the statement of claim on Defendant 2 (LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.) and extends the deadline for Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation until 21 July 2025, following an agreement between the parties.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE and Others
Promosome LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365, targeting several Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant (embodiment 2b), arguing it was produced and sold only before 1 June 2023, making jurisdiction contrary to the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. The judge-rapporteur held that the preliminary objection was admissible but deferred its final determination to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, pending a related Court of Appeal decision.
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.
Promosome LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 and various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant, arguing it was only produced and sold before 1 June 2023, relying on Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The judge-rapporteur deferred the preliminary objection to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, expressing a non-binding view concurring with existing UPC case law that the UPC has subject-matter competence over allegedly infringing acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. applied for an order requiring AorticLab srl to provide security for costs in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 129 425 before the Local Division Munich. The court held that a party filing a counterclaim for revocation qualifies as an 'Applicant' under Art. 69(4) UPCA and can request security for costs, and found that AorticLab's own statements about potential insolvency created a legitimate concern regarding recoverability of costs. The court ordered AorticLab to provide security of €200,000.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The court addressed Heraeus's request to extend its reply deadline and Vibrantz's request for clarification of deadlines. The court corrected the start date of Heraeus's reply period to March 18, 2025, when its UPC representative was granted access to unredacted documents, but rejected the extension request, holding that vacation plans of Confidentiality Club members cannot affect procedural deadlines.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3669828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation notified the court of its intention to enforce specific parts of a decision dated 4 April 2025 pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP. The defendants (Meril entities) agreed not to request a translation and confirmed compliance with the relevant orders, and the court ordered the issuance of an authentic paper copy of the decision.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited & Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited applied to the Local Division Munich for leave to amend its claim to extend the territorial scope of the infringement action to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom, following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (C-3999/22). Sumi Agro opposed, arguing the amendment could have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. The Court granted the application, holding that Syngenta could not reasonably have been expected to include the non-UPC territories in its original statement of claim, and adjusted the procedural timetable accordingly.
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.