Partially Granted
69 partially granted decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Partially Granted Decisions
69 cases | Page 1 of 3
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion filed by the respondent (Huawei) seeking to suspend an earlier order concerning document access granted by the rapporteur. The court ruled in favor of the respondent, utilizing Rule 335 VerfO to prevent the immediate fulfillment of the access request from undermining the subsequent Panel Review. This highlights the UPC's commitment to ensuring that procedural steps do not prematurely conclude a case before the full judicial review process is complete.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH (and associated Myriad entities)
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent EP 3 346 403. The patent covered methods for quantifying gene expression in breast cancer tissue using RT-PCR and normalization to endogenous reference genes. Despite GXD-Bio Corporation's infringement claims against Myriad International GmbH and its subsidiaries regarding their EndoPredict-Test, the court dismissed the infringement action following the revocation of the patent. This ruling underscores the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where a successful counterclaim for revocation can immediately extinguish an associated infringement claim.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH (and associated Myriad entities)
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent EP 3 346 403, which covered methods for quantifying gene expression in breast cancer tissue. The patent holder, GXD-Bio Corporation, had sued Myriad International GmbH and its subsidiaries for infringement, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ultimately sided with the defendants on the revocation claim, invalidating the patent across all relevant territories. This case highlights the dual risk inherent in UPC proceedings: an infringement suit can be defeated by a successful revocation defense.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP v.STADAPHARM GmbH a.o.
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466 in its entirety. The patent, which covered a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel (marketed as JEVTANA), was found invalid across several key member states. Consequently, all associated infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic manufacturers like STADAPHARM were dismissed. This case highlights the vulnerability of patents facing prior national challenges and underscores the UPC's role in enforcing or nullifying IP rights.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.Reddy Pharma SAS
In a significant pharmaceutical case, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466, which covered a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The revocation was based on prior findings of invalidity concerning the patent's scope and obviousness. Consequently, all associated infringement claims brought by Sanofi against generic manufacturers like Reddy Pharma were dismissed. This decision underscores the powerful impact of national invalidation proceedings on UPC rights.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP v.Zentiva France
In a significant pharmaceutical case, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466 concerning the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The revocation was based on prior invalidation proceedings in France, which demonstrated how national court decisions can directly impact patent validity within the unified system. Consequently, all associated infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic manufacturers like Zentiva were dismissed.
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd
This UPC decision addressed a security for costs application filed by multiple defendants against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., the claimant. The core issue revolved around the difficulty of enforcing cost judgments in Taiwan, where the claimant is based. Although the Defendants argued that enforcement risk was substantial due to Taiwanese legal uncertainties, the Court ultimately ordered ASUS to provide EUR 200,000 in security for costs. This ruling highlights the UPC's pragmatic approach to procedural fairness while balancing the need to protect parties against non-enforceable claims.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.Reddy Pharma SAS
In a significant ruling concerning pharmaceutical patents, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466. This patent covered a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel, which was marketed under the brand name JEVTANA by Sanofi. The revocation decision immediately dismissed all associated infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic competitors like Reddy Pharma SAS. This case underscores the powerful effect of successful revocation proceedings within the UPC framework.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP v.Zentiva France
In a significant pharmaceutical case, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466 concerning the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The revocation decision effectively dismissed the concurrent infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic manufacturers like Zentiva. This ruling underscores the power of the UPC to enforce patent validity across multiple jurisdictions, even when national court decisions regarding invalidity are involved.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP v.STADAPHARM GmbH a.o.
In a significant ruling for the pharmaceutical sector, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466, which covered a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. This decision immediately dismissed the associated infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic competitors such as Stada and Dr Reddy's. The ruling underscores the vulnerability of patents, even those related to specific medical uses, when challenged successfully on grounds of invalidity.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and others (Astronergy group)
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich found that Chint New Energy Technology Co. and its affiliates infringed the patent EP 2 787 541 concerning advanced solar cell technology. The court granted an injunction requiring the defendants to cease sales of their 'ASTRO N' series modules in key EU markets (Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands). Furthermore, the claimant was awarded interim costs, and the defendant's counterclaim for patent revocation was dismissed.
BFexaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request by NVIDIA Corporation for security for costs against BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG. Despite evidence presented regarding Claimant 2's severe liquidity issues, the Court ruled that security was necessary. The judge rapporteur set the required amount at EUR 80,500.00, emphasizing proportionality while safeguarding the Defendants' potential legal expenses.
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH v.Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH sought an extension of deadlines related to its infringement claim against Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH concerning EP 2 133 289. The court partially granted the request, setting a new deadline for various pleadings until September 5, 2025. This decision highlights the UPC's strict procedural adherence, where extensions must be calculated carefully to avoid conflicts with subsequent hearing dates and rules regarding weekend extensions.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
This UPC decision addresses both infringement and revocation claims concerning EP 2 387 547 B1. While the court provided extensive legal guidance on patent scope, exhaustion, and indirect infringement, it ultimately found the defendants liable for damages due to infringement. Despite this finding of liability, the main lawsuit was dismissed, indicating a complex outcome where remedies were granted but the overall claim failed.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc.
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addressed a security for costs dispute in an ongoing UPC case. The Court rejected the Claimant's proposal to use litigation insurance as adequate security. Instead, it mandated that Syntorr LP provide €2 million in security by September 30, 2025. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of Rule 158(1) RoP regarding acceptable forms of financial guarantees in UPC proceedings.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc.
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addresses a security for costs dispute in an ongoing UPC case involving Syntorr LP and Arthrex. The Court rejected the Claimant's proposal to use litigation insurance as adequate security. Instead, it mandated that the Claimant provide €2 million in security by September 30, 2025. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of Rule 158(1) RoP regarding acceptable forms of financial guarantees in UPC proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC case concerning an infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek, the court issued a procedural order focused entirely on protecting trade secrets. The defendant successfully petitioned for strict confidentiality measures regarding sensitive information submitted in their defense pleadings. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, ensuring that proprietary knowledge remains shielded from public view and unauthorized access during litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a request for confidentiality regarding trade secrets arising from license negotiations between Huawei and MediaTek. The court successfully granted an order classifying specific documents as confidential information. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within UPC proceedings by applying existing rules analogously to ensure secrecy.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd sued MediaTek Germany GmbH for patent infringement concerning EP 4 142 215. The court addressed a request by MediaTek to protect confidential information submitted during the proceedings. The UPC granted an order establishing strict confidentiality measures, limiting access to trade secrets to specific parties and counsel. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing public transparency with the protection of sensitive business interests.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
This UPC decision is a procedural order concerning the logistics of an upcoming oral hearing in the Munich Local Division. Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC requested permission to use private interpreters due to facility limitations, which the Court partially granted. This ruling highlights the court's flexibility in accommodating parties' needs while maintaining procedural integrity.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the court addressed a motion for security for costs. Despite the Claimant's status as an entity primarily focused on licensing, the court found sufficient grounds to mandate that the Claimant provide financial guarantees to the Respondents. This decision reinforces the procedural right of defendants in the UPC to seek cost protection when they perceive the claimant lacks the necessary financial stability to cover litigation expenses.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
In this UPC decision concerning infringement of EP 3 110 069, the court addressed a motion for security for costs. Despite the defendants having filed counterclaims seeking revocation, the court found that they were entitled to demand financial security from the claimant (Headwater Research LLC). The ruling mandates Headwater to deposit EUR 200,000 for Motorola entities and EUR 100,000 for Flextronics International Europe B.V., highlighting the practical application of cost protection rules in complex UPC litigation.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 3 110 069), the court addressed a motion for security for costs. Although the defendants filed counterclaims seeking revocation, they were still granted the right to demand financial security from the claimant. The ruling emphasizes that cost protection is available even when the defendant has raised a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity, provided there are sufficient doubts regarding the claimant's ability to cover defense expenses.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for security for costs in an infringement case involving Headwater Research LLC and several Motorola/Flextronics entities concerning patent EP 3 110 072. The court found that the claimant, Headwater Research LLC, lacked sufficient financial standing to cover potential litigation costs, particularly given its business model as a patent licensing entity with limited operational scale. Consequently, the claimant was ordered to deposit EUR 200,000 for Motorola entities and EUR 100,000 for Flextronics International Europe B.V. This ruling underscores the court's power to enforce financial safeguards in complex UPC proceedings.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision addresses jurisdictional challenges in a complex infringement case involving multiple defendants (Motorola group and Flextronics). The Munich Local Division upheld its jurisdiction, clarifying the scope of Article 33(1)(b) EPGÜ. By dismissing the objections, the court allowed the main infringement proceedings to proceed against all parties, including the logistics provider, Flextronics International Europe B.V., who was accused of contributing to the infringement.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed rectification requests filed by Meril (the defendants) concerning a prior infringement and revocation action involving Edwards Lifesciences' prosthetic heart valve patent. The court agreed to correct several statements in the original decision, including clarifying claim scope and correcting clerical errors regarding opposition dates and disclosure orders. This ruling underscores the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting obvious mistakes in judicial decisions.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 152 073, the UPC Local Division Munich granted Syngenta Limited's request to amend its claim to include territories outside the core UPC jurisdiction (Poland, Czech Republic, and UK). This decision addresses the legal uncertainty created by recent ECJ rulings regarding infringement in non-UPC states. The court determined that Syngenta was not required to make this amendment earlier due to the evolving legal landscape, allowing the main infringement and revocation proceedings to proceed across these expanded territories.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril Life Sciences addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most pending applications but issued a specific protective measure regarding sensitive legal billing details. This decision highlights the practical application of confidentiality rules (Rule 262A RoP) in complex litigation, particularly concerning attorney-client privilege and fee structures.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences sued Meril entities for infringing its prosthetic heart valve patent (EP 3 669 828 B2). The UPC Local Division Munich issued a comprehensive decision, granting provisional damages of EUR 663,000 and ordering the defendants to cease infringement. Beyond the merits, the court provided important procedural guidance on suing multiple related entities under UPCA rules and applying EPO's problem-solution approach in litigation.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This UPC costs determination case involved the aftermath of a patent infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 225 320. The core dispute centered on the reasonableness and necessity of legal fees claimed by the defendant, EJP Maschinen GmbH, for both the infringement suit and the counterclaim for revocation. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent regarding costs, setting a specific amount payable by the claimant, MSG Maschinenbau GmbH.
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.