Litigation
374 litigation decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
374 cases | Page 8 of 13
Sanofi Mature IP and Others v.Accord Healthcare and Others (UPC_CFI_145/2024, 146/2024, 147/2024, 148/2024)
This procedural order concerns four related patent infringement actions brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The core issue was Sanofi's application under Rule 305 RoP to substitute Sanofi-Aventis France with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie following a corporate merger. The court granted the substitution, ruling that the retroactive effect of the merger was not relevant and that no formal stay of proceedings was necessary.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed an infringement action against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the defendants filed a counterclaim for invalidity, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This case concerned a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1 filed by Tesla against Avago Technologies' infringement action. Tesla withdrew its counterclaim for revocation, and Avago consented to the withdrawal without requesting a cost decision. The Local Chamber Munich allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321. Both parties agreed that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation should be heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, and the panel concurred. The court ordered the consolidation of the proceedings and scheduled an interim hearing for January 16, 2025, and an oral hearing for March 25, 2025.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent No. 3 678 321. The technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon resigned pursuant to Art. 9(2) of the Statutes, necessitating the assignment of a replacement judge to ensure continuity of the panel.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich in a declaration of non-infringement action concerning European Patents Nos. 3 678 321 and 3 611 989. The order addresses Netgear's request to incorporate a license agreement between Huawei and Qualcomm (previously filed as Annex K68 in related infringement proceedings) into the present case file, and the proposal to assign the technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon from a related proceeding. Both parties consented to both requests, and the Rapporteur granted them.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This order concerns three consolidated patent infringement actions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court. The parties reached a settlement and jointly applied for the withdrawal of all claims and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The court granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning two related proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The court granted a short extension of time limits until December 27, 2024 for the plaintiff's representative to file the reply to the infringement action and the defense to the nullity counterclaim, based on preliminary substantiation of health-related impairments of the responsible attorney. The plaintiff's representative was ordered to further substantiate the health impairments within 20 days.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning two related proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The court granted a further extension of deadlines for the plaintiff's representative to file a reply to the infringement action and a defense to the counterclaim, based on the health-related incapacity of the responsible attorney. The deadlines were extended from December 23, 2024 to December 27, 2024, subject to further substantiation of the health impairments.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patents Nos. 2 197 132, 3 024 163, and 2 584 854. The parties agreed to withdraw their respective actions and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and granted a 40 percent partial reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This order concerns procedural matters following the Local Chamber Munich's August 30, 2024 decision invalidating European Patent No. 1 838 002 and dismissing the infringement action. After Avago filed an appeal and Tesla filed a cost determination application, both parties sought to withdraw their respective applications. The court granted the withdrawal of the cost determination application and ordered each party to bear their own costs in that proceeding.
HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG (Application for Access to Court Files) v.Ex Parte
HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG, an opponent in pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office concerning European Patent EP 3 602 692, applied for access to the briefs and evidence filed in infringement proceedings between PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The court granted the application, holding that an opponent in pending opposition proceedings has a legal interest in accessing court files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP during ongoing proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. The court granted both parties' Rule 263 requests to add Romania (which acceded to the Unitary Patent system on 1 September 2024) to the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, and granted the claimant's request to amend its information request to require purchase documents. The court set the dispute value at €16 million, scheduled the oral hearing for 11 February 2025, and rejected requests for party and court experts.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
Infringement action by Huawei Technologies against Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989, which relates to methods and devices for transmitting/receiving a High Efficiency Signal Field B (HE-SIG-B) in wireless local area networks. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a mixed ruling, finding partial infringement while addressing FRAND/competition law defenses, exhaustion arguments, and IEEE Bylaws issues, with costs split 80/20 against the defendants.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH, and Belkin Limited
This case concerns an application by Koninklijke Philips N.V. for the imposition of a coercive fine (Zwangsgeld) against the Belkin entities for non-compliance with an information order (Auskunft) issued in a main infringement decision dated September 13, 2024, regarding EP 2 867 997 B1. The Local Chamber Munich held that while the defendants were not required to provide the information in electronic form (since this was not specifically requested), they had provided incomplete information. A total coercive fine of €46,000 was imposed, and appeal was admitted.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
Infringement action by Huawei against Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989 relating to HE-SIG-B signaling in wireless local area networks. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed multiple defenses including exhaustion, FRAND, and IEEE LOA-based arguments, ultimately finding partial infringement and ordering injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and damages, while splitting costs 80/20 in favor of the defendants on the infringement claim.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited sought to revoke a preliminary measures order (ORD 47657/2024) against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited, arguing that the underlying main proceedings on the merits were not timely started within the non-extendable deadlines under Rule 213.1 RoP. The Local Division Munich dismissed the application, holding that the proceedings were validly started when the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024, and that Rule 15(2) RoP does not require court fees to have been physically received by the Court before the deadline expires.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, Netgear Deutschland GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application concerning the service of a request for preliminary measures (interim injunction) to a Chinese-domiciled defendant in proceedings related to EP 3 655 341. After formal service under the Hague Service Convention failed due to the Chinese authority's non-processing for over six months, and alternative methods of service were neither factually nor legally possible, the court held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. Service was deemed effective as of the date of the order, with the defendant given fourteen days to file an objection.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by air up group GmbH for a preliminary injunction against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. regarding EP 3 897 305. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention despite multiple attempts over more than six months. The court declared the steps already taken as good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, deemed service effective as of the date of the order, and granted the defendant 14 days to file an objection.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. regarding EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention as the competent Chinese authority received the documents but failed to process them for more than six months. The Local Division Munich held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order and granting the defendant 14 days to file an objection.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court granted Avago's application for an anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunction against Realtek. Realtek had filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking to permanently enjoin Avago from pursuing patent infringement claims in Germany against certain automotive companies using Realtek's products. The court held that such foreign anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions violate the European right to access to justice under Art. 47 of the EU Charter and the German constitutional right to access to courts, and qualify as tortious acts under § 823(1) BGB.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement and nullity counterclaim proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 215 288 (metal sintering preparation). The court addressed multiple requests including the review of a prior rejection of an amendment to add 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 extensions to Romania for both the infringement claim and the nullity counterclaim, revised its prior order on indirect infringement, and established a new briefing schedule.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns a request by the defendants for the claimant to provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 346 403. The defendants argued that the claimant, a Korean IP monetization company incorporated in 2024 with limited assets and a low credit rating, posed a risk that any cost order would be unrecoverable. The claimant did not contest the request and agreed to provide security of EUR 112,000, and the court ordered the security to be provided by deposit or bank guarantee by 15 January 2025.
Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co
Häfele SE & Co KG sought interim measures from the Local Chamber Munich against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 767 151 concerning a cabinet levelling apparatus. The court rejected the application, finding that prior art documents (D8 and D9) raised serious doubts about the validity of the patent, and that the balance of interests weighed against granting interim relief given the pending nullity action and opposition proceedings.
Collomix GmbH v.Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG, and Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning water dosing devices marketed as 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät.' The claimant, Collomix GmbH, sought permission to submit a physical example of the accused embodiment after filing the claim. The court granted the request, holding that the Rules of Procedure contain no principle preventing a claimant from submitting evidence for facts alleged in the claim after the claim has been filed.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European Patent No. 3646825 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants (Meril) filed applications requesting the court to approach the European Commission for information about ongoing antitrust investigations into the claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the oral hearing. The court rejected both applications as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and oral hearing, and noting that no formal antitrust investigation had been opened.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. and Meril GmbH
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court for infringement of European Patent EP 3 646 825 concerning transcatheter heart valve technology. The court found that Meril's Myval transcatheter heart valve and associated delivery and crimping systems infringed Edwards' patent, and ordered recall, destruction, damages of €663,000, and publication of the decision. The court also addressed public interest concerns by creating a mechanism allowing individual patients to request single-use licences for XL-sized Myval devices where the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve is not clinically suitable.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a request filed by the defendants (Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.) in an ongoing patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendants sought to have the court request information from the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) and to reopen the proceedings. The Local Division Munich rejected the request as late-filed and without merit.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 646 825 before the Local Division Munich. The Defendants (Meril) filed late applications requesting the Court to approach the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the written procedure. The Court rejected the requests as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and the oral hearing, and noted that no formal investigation had been opened by the European Commission.
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.