Litigation
374 litigation decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
374 cases | Page 5 of 13
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 service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The claimants sought recognition of attempted service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) as valid, or alternatively substituted service, after the registered letter was notified for collection but left unclaimed. The court applied Rule 271.6(b) RoP and deemed service on Defendant 4 effective on 14 March 2025, ordering the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC and Others
The plaintiff, Headwater Research LLC, sought severance of its patent infringement action against the fifth defendant (Flextronics International Europe B.V.) from the proceedings against the other four defendants under Rule 303(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich rejected the severance request, finding that joint proceedings served procedural economy because the cases concerned the same allegedly infringing embodiment and overlapping infringement questions, and that any delays were attributable to the plaintiff's own error in initially suing a non-existent party.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The court addressed the question of whether service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) via registered letter that was not collected by the addressee should be deemed valid. Applying Rule 271.6.b of the Rules of Procedure, the presiding judge deemed service on Defendant 4 to have been completed on 14 March 2025 and ordered the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the continuation of written proceedings in an infringement action regarding EP 4 108 782. The claimants had initially filed 55 auxiliary requests, which were later reduced to 4, and the court ordered the immediate continuation of the written procedure to preserve the agreed oral hearing date of 17/18 September 2025. The court set deadlines for the parties' further written submissions and requested confirmation regarding an interim conference.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Erik Krahbichler, Third Party)
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses the withdrawal of various applications filed in the course of infringement proceedings. After third party Erik Krahbichler withdrew his application for access to the file, defendants Meril filed applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. Following guidance from the judge-rapporteur referencing a similar order from the Central Division Paris Seat, Meril withdrew these applications, and the court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE and Others (Pfizer and Others)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant Promosome LLC proposed significantly lower amounts. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly, rejecting the request for a default decision as premature.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (UPC_CFI_501/2023 and UPC_CFI_676/2024)
Procedural order concerning European Patent No. 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. Following a third party's (Erik Krahbichler) withdrawal of his application for access to the file, the defendant Meril Life Sciences withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. The Presiding Judge permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential.
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, and Pfizer, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) sought security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant (Promosome LLC) proposed a lower amount. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly while rejecting the request for a default decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against three Meril entities (based in Germany, India, and Italy) before the Local Division Munich, alleging that Meril's 'Myval' transcatheter heart valve and 'Navigator' delivery device infringed EP 3 669 828 B2 ('Prosthetic Heart Valve'). Meril contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, while Edwards sought to amend the patent. The Court rejected Meril's preliminary objections on jurisdiction, upheld the patent as amended, found infringement, and ordered cease-and-desist, recall, destruction, disclosure, publication, and provisional damages of EUR 663,000.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al.
In a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 before the Local Division Munich, the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested under Rule 190 RoP that the Claimant Promosome LLC produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in the proceedings. The Court rejected the request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, finding that the Defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of their defences, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested and the facts they sought to prove.
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, and Pfizer, Inc.
This case concerns a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) filed an application under Rule 190 RoP seeking to compel the claimant Promosome LLC to produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in support of its infringement claims. The court rejected the defendants' request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, holding that the defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of any defense, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S and Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning a preliminary objection filed by Ascendis Pharma in an infringement action brought by BioMarin Pharmaceutical regarding European patent 3 175 863 (Variants of C-Type Natriuretic Peptide). Ascendis challenged the validity of BioMarin's withdrawal of opt-out and argued that BioMarin failed to establish the court's competence by not sufficiently alleging infringing acts. The presiding judge rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, finding the opt-out withdrawal valid and that BioMarin had sufficiently shown actual and threatened infringement occurring in Germany.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich concerning two related infringement actions (UPC_CFI_54/2024 and UPC_CFI_396/2024) involving European patent EP 2 391 947. Samsung, with Headwater's consent, requested an extension of the deadline to file comments on three pending applications, and the Presiding Judge granted the extension from 3 April 2025 to 8 April 2025, closing the four associated workflows.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH v.SOTRAS - S.R.L.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH filed an application for interim measures before the Local Chamber Munich alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 762 219 by SOTRAS - S.R.L. After the respondent filed an opposition, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting the applicant to withdraw its application. The court permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees (€6,600.00) to the applicant, while finding no inter-party cost reimbursement.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court granted JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.'s application for leave to change its claims in an infringement action concerning EP 2 787 541. The court allowed the patentee to amend its infringement claims to align with auxiliary requests filed under Rule 30 RoP in response to the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, to incorporate amendments made by the EPO Opposition Division to claim 13, and to add a new allegedly infringing embodiment (ASTRO N8 Bifacial Series) that came to light after the original filing.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the rectification of a scheduling order in an infringement action. The court corrected a typo in the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025, specifying the details of the oral hearing venue and time.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This is a cost-setting decision (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in full, the claimant MSG Maschinenbau GmbH withdrew its infringement action, and the court ordered MSG to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. The defendant EJP Maschinen GmbH sought reimbursement of €20,797.00 for infringement costs and €18,697.50 for revocation costs, and the court granted a total of €33,224.50, partially reducing the claimed amounts.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This is a cost determination decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in its entirety, the plaintiff (MSG) withdrew its infringement action and was ordered to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. The defendant (EJP) sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court set the recoverable costs at €33,224.50, rejecting the plaintiff's objections to certain attorney fees and the claim for interest on the costs.
Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. (Application under RoP 262.1(b)) v.Ex Parte
This procedural order concerns an application by Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_146/2024) involving Sanofi entities as claimants and STADA entities as defendants regarding European patent EP 2 493 466. Medac had uploaded a privileged and confidential letter from Sanofi as 'Exhibit 2' in unredacted form, prompting objections from Sanofi. The court permitted the withdrawal of the application and the exhibit, ordered Medac to bear the costs of removing the exhibit from the CMS, imposed a recurring penalty for any future use of the document, and issued a warning to Medac's representative for negligent breach of the Code of Conduct.
Chint Solar Netherlands B.V. and Others v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
The defendants in patent infringement proceedings (Chint and Astronergy entities) applied for an order requiring the claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. (a Chinese company), to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division Munich granted the application, ordering the claimant to provide security of €200,000 by 30 April 2025, reasoning that China's failure to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention justified an assumption that any UPC cost reimbursement order would not be enforceable in China or only in an unduly burdensome way.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendants' objection (Einspruch) under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 903 267. The defendants had argued that the UPC lacks jurisdiction because the UPC Agreement is incompatible with EU primary law (TEU and TFEU), relying on CJEU Opinion 1/09. The court held that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a valid ground for objection under Rule 19(1), and that for establishing jurisdiction, a prima facie allegation of infringement suffices without proof of actual or imminent infringement.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc. and Roku International B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258. The defendants (Roku) filed an opposition challenging the UPC's jurisdiction, arguing that the UPC Agreement is incompatible with EU primary law and that the UPC's court structure violates their right to a lawful judge due to Brexit-related issues with the London section of the Central Division. The court rejected the opposition, holding that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a valid ground for opposition under Rule 19(1), and that for establishing jurisdiction, a prima facie claim of infringement suffices without requiring proof of actual infringement.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court scheduled the proceedings, deciding to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, and set dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure deadlines.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an opposition filed by the defendants against a patent infringement action. The court rejected the defendants' opposition, which challenged the UPC's jurisdiction on grounds that the UPCA is incompatible with EU primary law, and held that such arguments are not valid grounds for opposition under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The court also found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged infringement for jurisdictional purposes and that proof of the representative's authorization for the opt-out withdrawal was not required unless contested.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning two consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024) relating to European Patent No. 3 866 051. Both parties jointly applied for leave to withdraw the main action and counterclaim without a cost decision, and the defendant additionally sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, cancelled the oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the court fee paid for the counterclaim.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This case concerns an application for protection of confidential information filed by Edwards Lifesciences in connection with its cost application in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich regarding European patent EP 3 646 825. The court granted Edwards' request for protection under Rule 262.2 RoP (restricting disclosure to the public and third parties) but rejected the request under Rule 262A RoP (restricting access vis-à-vis the opposing party), thereby granting Meril unrestricted access to the cost application while preventing disclosure to third parties or the public.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and Others
This case concerns a patent infringement action filed by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited regarding European Patent No. 2 793 430. The Local Division Munich issued a procedural scheduling order on 18 March 2025, setting dates for the interim conference, written procedure, and oral hearing, and subsequently issued a rectification order on 19 March 2025 to correct typographical errors in the original scheduling order.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited & Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This case concerns an application by Sumi Agro to revoke provisional measures previously granted in favor of Syngenta Limited regarding European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centered on whether Syngenta had timely 'started proceedings on the merits' within the deadline set under Rule 213.1 RoP, given that the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024 but the court fee was received on 30 September 2024. The Local Division Munich upheld the judge-rapporteur's dismissal of Sumi Agro's application, finding that Syngenta had started proceedings in due time, and granted leave to appeal.
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, and Pfizer, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
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, and Pfizer, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The Court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
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.