Partially Granted
69 partially granted decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Partially Granted Decisions
69 cases | Page 2 of 3
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for security for costs in an infringement proceeding involving solar technology. The Court ultimately granted the request, despite the Claimant's argument that non-EU domicile alone should not be grounds for such an order. The ruling hinged on practical difficulties faced by European courts when serving documents in China, specifically citing issues related to the Hague Service Convention. This case highlights how procedural enforcement challenges can override general principles of jurisdiction and cost allocation within the UPC framework.
Sanofi (various entities) v.Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H.
This procedural order addressed Medac's attempt to withdraw an application concerning a privileged and confidential document (Exhibit 2) that had been uploaded into the UPC system. The court permitted the withdrawal but issued a strong warning against Medac's representative for negligently breaching the Code of Conduct by uploading the unredacted material. This decision underscores the strict procedural requirements regarding confidentiality and evidence handling within the UPC framework.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This UPC costs decision addressed the allocation of legal fees arising from a complex infringement and revocation action involving EP 3 225 320. The court scrutinized the reasonableness and necessity of the defendant's extensive cost claims, including those related to 'strategic considerations.' Ultimately, the court partially granted the claim for costs, ordering the claimant to pay €33,224.50 to the respondent. A key procedural point was the rejection of interest on awarded costs.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
In this UPC case, Dolby International AB sued Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. for infringement of EP 3 490 258. The defendants raised a complex jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the UPC's legal basis was incompatible with EU law. The court decisively rejected these arguments, confirming its jurisdiction based on the claimants' assertions. Consequently, the exception was dismissed, and the main infringement proceedings will proceed, setting the stage for further litigation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku Inc.
In this UPC case, Sun Patent Trust sued Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. for infringement of EP 2 903 267. The defendants raised significant jurisdictional challenges, arguing that the EPCG was incompatible with EU law (AEUV/EUV). The court decisively rejected these arguments, affirming the UPC's jurisdiction over both current and past acts of alleged infringement. Consequently, the opposition was dismissed, and the main infringement proceedings will proceed.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku International B.V., Roku, Inc.
In this UPC case, Sun Patent Trust initiated infringement proceedings against Roku International and Roku Inc. The defendants raised a major jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the EPC is incompatible with EU law (EUV/AEUV). The Local Division of Munich rejected this opposition argument, affirming the court's jurisdiction to hear the infringement claim. Consequently, the revocation counterclaim was dismissed, allowing the main infringement case to proceed, and an appeal against this decision was admitted.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
In this UPC decision regarding provisional measures, the court addressed a request for security deposit to cover legal costs in an infringement proceeding. Although the claimant cited negative credit ratings and operating losses of the respondent, the court ultimately granted a reduced security order of €62,600.00. This ruling highlights the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness with financial risk management, demonstrating that economic hardship alone does not automatically preclude the requirement for security.
SnowPixie Co., Ltd. v.Unnamed (Verletzungsklägerin)
This UPC decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning the provision of security for legal costs in an infringement case. The court found that while the respondent (the defendant) faced financial strain, evidenced by an operating loss, they were still capable of providing the required security deposit. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to furnish €62,600.00 in security, rejecting the claimant's initial demand for a much higher sum.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a cost determination proceeding initiated by Edwards Lifesciences against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. While the court found that the respondents were liable for the procedural costs totaling EUR 244,000 (including amounts agreed upon in earlier proceedings), it definitively rejected the claimant's request to have these costs paid with interest. The ruling clarifies a critical distinction within UPC procedure: while damages claims may include compensation for time value of money, standard cost reimbursement does not automatically carry an interest component unless explicitly provided by law.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural matter following the initial invalidation of EP 1 838 002. The court allowed Avago Technologies to withdraw its cost determination application, effectively ending that specific proceeding. Crucially, the ruling established that in this context, each party must bear their own costs, providing clarity on cost allocation after a patent's revocation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This UPC decision between Huawei and Netgear addresses critical intersections of patent law, antitrust compliance (FRAND), and exhaustion principles in the telecommunications sector. The court ruled that a patent holder's obligation to offer FRAND terms is complex; making multiple acceptable offers can prevent an infringement suit from being dismissed on cartel grounds. While the core lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, specific claims were granted with an injunction, highlighting the nuanced application of these legal doctrines.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH, and Belkin Limited
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 2 867 997 B1), Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a disclosure order against Belkin International and its subsidiaries. After the defendants failed to provide complete, organized information in an electronic format as required by the initial judgment, the court imposed a substantial Zwangsgeld (coercive fine). The ruling serves as a strong warning that non-compliance with judicial orders for evidence or information can lead to significant financial penalties under UPC rules.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This UPC decision between Huawei and Netgear addresses critical intersections of patent law, antitrust regulations (FRAND), and SEP licensing. The court ruled on the validity of exhaustion defenses and clarified that a patent holder's obligation under cartel law is met if they provide multiple FRAND-compliant options, such as pool licenses. While the infringement claim was partially granted with an injunction, the overall lawsuit was dismissed, highlighting the nuanced balance between IP rights enforcement and competition law compliance in the UPC.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving infringement and revocation, the central patent (EP 3 225 320 B1) was fully revoked by the EPO Board of Appeal prior to the final hearing. Consequently, the Local Division of Munich allowed the claimant to withdraw its infringement suit and declared the infringement proceedings terminated. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed as moot. This decision highlights how external events, such as patent revocation, can fundamentally alter the trajectory of UPC litigation.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
In this UPC case, i-mop GmbH successfully obtained a default judgment against ARCORA International GmbH regarding the infringement of its floor cleaning device patent (EP 3 760 094). The court found that ARCORA's product infringed the patent claims and granted preliminary relief, including damages and an injunction. Although the case was ultimately concluded due to partial withdrawal by i-mop, the ruling serves as a significant precedent regarding default judgments in UPC infringement proceedings.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Samsung Electronics GmbH for security for legal costs against Headwater Research LLC. The court found that Headwater, an NPE whose business model relies solely on patent litigation revenue, failed to sufficiently rebut the defendants' claims regarding its limited financial standing. As a result, the Claimant was ordered to deposit €100,000 as security for costs.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Order concerns an application to intervene in a patent infringement and revocation case involving NEC Corporation against various TCL entities, concerning HEVC Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The intervener is Access Advance LLC, the administrator of the relevant SEP pool. The Court ruled that the pool administrator possesses a genuine legal interest in the outcome, thereby admitting them as a party to the proceedings. This decision clarifies the procedural rights and limitations regarding confidential information access for patent pool administrators participating in UPC litigation.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC addressed a request by Heraeus Electronics to amend its infringement claims following changes in national patent litigation. The court permitted the amendment of direct infringement claims that reflected legal finality achieved elsewhere. However, the court rejected the late addition of an indirect infringement claim, citing lack of due diligence and arguing it should have been raised at the initial filing.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, AUDI AG
Network System Technologies LLC successfully withdrew its infringement action against Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH following a settlement, as permitted under UPC Rule 265 RoP. The court formally closed these proceedings while leaving the claims against Volkswagen AG and AUDI AG unaffected. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties reach private settlements.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A VerfO in an infringement case involving OPPO and Panasonic. The court confirmed that the information was indeed confidential but modified the scope of access and rejected the demand for document destruction post-trial. This ruling provides clarity on balancing the need for secrecy with the practical requirements of litigation, particularly regarding permissible access by legal representatives.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
In a significant procedural ruling concerning trade secrets, the UPC Local Court in Munich addressed requests for confidentiality related to litigation documents. The court consolidated and confirmed an order protecting specific information submitted by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi and its affiliates. This decision is crucial for practitioners as it sets clear boundaries on how sensitive business information can be handled during complex cross-border patent disputes.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this UPC decision concerning EP3024163, the court addressed a request for evidence production and confidentiality. While the main application was dismissed, the court consolidated and finalized the existing provisional confidentiality order. This final ruling sets strict boundaries on who can view confidential information, particularly related to FRAND licensing terms, reinforcing the importance of procedural safeguards in complex patent litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion regarding the production of corporate documents in an infringement case involving Avago Technologies and Tesla. The respondents sought internal Board of Directors resolutions to challenge the claimant's legal standing (active legitimation) concerning patent ownership and assignment validity. The court partially granted this request, compelling the claimant to produce specific transfer authorization documents necessary for the respondent to properly defend their position under Rule 190.1.
Unnamed Claimant v.NEC Corporation
This UPC CFI decision addressed procedural disputes in an infringement case involving HEVC standards. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant's failure to upload the correct standard version alongside the Statement of Claim violated Rule 13.2, justifying a request for an extension of their defense deadline. The Court upheld this principle, granting the extension while rejecting other claims by the Claimant regarding deadlines and technical references.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, the court addressed a procedural motion concerning deadlines in an infringement action involving patent EP3110072. The defendants requested an extension of the opposition period for certain parties due to logistical and administrative reasons. After considering the arguments, the court granted the request, aligning the opposition deadlines across the involved parties. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines when there is consensus among the litigants.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by Volkswagen/Audi and Texas Instruments against Network System Technologies' infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The Court largely rejected jurisdictional challenges, allowing the case to proceed. However, it significantly narrowed the scope of alleged infringement, focusing primarily on the TI DRA79x SoC, while deferring complex issues like UK damages to the main proceedings. This ruling signals a careful application of procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary objection case, Audi AG sought to dismiss an infringement action against Network System Technologies LLC based on jurisdictional issues and the lack of evidence. The Court partially rejected these objections, allowing the core infringement claims to proceed. Crucially, the court emphasized efficiency, deciding that complex matters like UK damages and patent validity must be addressed within the main proceedings rather than being dismissed upfront.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against major automotive and semiconductor players regarding patent EP 1 552 399 B1. The Court partially dismissed NST's arguments concerning jurisdiction, standing, and the scope of infringing embodiments. Crucially, the court ruled that complex issues, such as damages related to the UK market or validity questions already pending elsewhere, must be addressed in the main proceedings to ensure procedural efficiency. This ruling signals a pragmatic approach by the UPC CFI, balancing the need for preliminary filtering with the goal of efficient case management.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary objection case, Volkswagen and Audi (Claimants) sought to dismiss an infringement action against Network System Technologies LLC (Respondent). The Court of First Instance partially rejected these objections. While some initial procedural hurdles were noted, the court emphasized efficiency, ruling that complex issues like damages and validity must be addressed within the main proceedings rather than dismissing the case outright.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by both the claimant (NST) and respondents (VW/Audi, TI). The Court largely rejected motions seeking immediate dismissal of the infringement action as manifestly unfounded. Instead, it applied case management principles to defer complex issues—such as jurisdiction over damages in the UK or patent validity—to the main proceedings. This ruling signals a preference for efficient litigation flow within the UPC system rather than premature termination.
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.