Pending
101 pending decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Pending Decisions
101 cases | Page 1 of 4
Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z o.o. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision, issued by the President of the Court of First Instance in Munich, addressed a procedural request regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving OPPO and Crystal Clear Codec. The defendants requested that the court change the language from German to English, citing fairness and industry standards. Crucially, the claimant agreed to this change, leading the court to issue an order adopting English as the official language for the remainder of the litigation.
Sanofi SA (and associated Sanofi entities) v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, and other defendants
In this complex pharmaceutical infringement case, Sanofi initiated proceedings against several competitors regarding the validity of EP patent 2 493 466. The court issued a procedural order summoning party experts to address critical questions concerning the inventive step and the reasonable expectation of success in oncological clinical trials (specifically referencing the TROPIC study). This hearing will focus on whether sufficient data existed at the priority date to justify the trial's progression, making it a significant case for pharmaceutical patent practitioners.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP), Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order in the UPC Munich Local Division sets the stage for a complex pharmaceutical patent dispute involving Sanofi and various generic competitors. The court has scheduled detailed expert testimony to address highly technical questions concerning oncological clinical trials, specifically regarding the reasonable expectation of success for the patented drug. This focus on factual evidence related to industry practice is crucial as it will directly inform the panel's decision on whether the patent lacks inventive step (obviousness).
Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Mature IP (represented by Sanofi SA) v.Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare B.V.
This procedural order in a complex pharmaceutical patent dispute between Sanofi and Accord Healthcare (and related defendants) sets the stage for critical expert testimony and oral hearings. The core of the case revolves around the validity of European Patent EP 2 493 466, specifically challenging its inventive step based on clinical trial data (TROPIC study). The court has scheduled detailed sessions to allow experts to address complex factual questions regarding oncological drug development, which will ultimately inform the legal question of obviousness. This case highlights the UPC's structured approach to integrating technical expertise into patent litigation.
Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi AB v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order in a complex pharmaceutical infringement case involving Sanofi against multiple defendants sets the stage for intensive litigation. The core dispute revolves around the inventive step of EP 2 493 466, specifically concerning the reasonable expectation of success derived from clinical trials (TROPIC study). The court has scheduled extensive expert testimony and oral hearings to allow the panel to address highly technical factual questions related to oncology drug development before making a final decision on validity and infringement. This case highlights the UPC's capacity to handle deep scientific and medical complexities in patent disputes.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In a procedural order concerning solar technology patents, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a stay to both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision was made because the parties are actively negotiating a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding the disputed patent EP 4 372 829. The Court also ensured that if the proceedings resume, all deadlines will be reset, providing procedural certainty while allowing time for commercial resolution.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for public access to confidential case documents in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC and TCL. Despite the underlying claims being withdrawn by the parties, the Court recognized a general interest in judicial transparency. The court granted the applicant access to redacted versions of key pleadings and exhibits, setting a precedent for balancing openness with confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B. V., Energy3000 solar GmbH, Thomas Seifert
In a procedural order issued on August 26, 2025, the UPC stayed an infringement action concerning EP 3 297 043 B1. The stay was granted because both the Claimant and several Defendants were engaged in settlement negotiations. Additionally, the Court extended the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence to five months to accommodate the procedural pause. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation where out-of-court settlements are actively being pursued.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 875 683. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and thus the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the procedural effectiveness of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. The ruling confirms that formal requirements for withdrawal are sufficient, even without explicit proof of power of attorney by a registered UPC representative.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
Huawei initiated infringement proceedings against MediaTek regarding its Dimensity series chips, which are alleged to infringe EP 3 905 840 B1. A key procedural development was the dispute over the disclosure of confidential license agreements and licensee names. The UPC court issued a detailed order granting protective measures under Rule 262A VerfO, strictly limiting access to sensitive information while allowing the infringement case to proceed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a complex infringement case involving Huawei and MediaTek concerning 5G-capable Dimensity chips, the UPC issued an interim procedural order focusing on confidentiality. The court granted extensive protection for trade secrets related to licensing agreements, limiting access to highly sensitive information only to specific parties. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for managing confidential data during litigation, which is crucial in high-tech patent disputes.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd.; Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Benia New Material Technology Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich separated an infringement action involving Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. against four Chinese defendants. The separation was necessitated by differing service timelines for the defendants, allowing proceedings to continue against two parties while awaiting service on the remaining two. This decision highlights the court's flexibility in managing complex multi-defendant cases under the UPC framework.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by MediaTek Germany GmbH to protect confidential information related to its licensing negotiations with Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court found that these documents constituted trade secrets and issued an order mandating strict confidentiality for all parties involved in the proceedings. This ruling reinforces the protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, even when public disclosure is otherwise expected.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC initiated an infringement action against Samsung Electronics concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947, which relates to verifiable device-assisted service policy implementation for data saving. Headwater alleges that various Samsung mobile devices running Android 7 or higher infringe the patent claims. Samsung has countered with a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent based on grounds including lack of inventive step and novelty. The case is currently in procedural stages before the UPC Local Division Munich.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses a request for an extension of deadlines in the infringement action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities regarding patent EP 2 645 714. The court granted the requested time extension, ensuring fairness between all parties involved in the complex litigation. Additionally, the ruling clarified the procedures for handling confidential information submitted during the proceedings under specific UPC Rules of Procedure. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility and careful management employed by the UPC CFI.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses several critical administrative and legal issues in a high-stakes solar technology dispute. The court granted comprehensive confidentiality protections for sensitive information submitted by the defendants, ensuring that trade secrets remain protected throughout the litigation process. Crucially, the panel decided to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, avoiding procedural inefficiency while addressing the technical complexity of the patent.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Jinko Solar against LONGi Solar sets the stage for a major patent dispute concerning solar panel technology. The court has scheduled an interim conference and a full oral hearing, confirming that the proceedings will cover both infringement and validity of the patent. This decision is significant as it moves the complex technical dispute into the active litigation phase within the UPC framework.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited initiated infringement proceedings against Sumi Agro Limited and its European subsidiary concerning EP patent n° 2 152 073. In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a stay of all proceedings at the request of both parties. This decision effectively pauses the litigation, allowing time for strategic reassessment by the involved companies.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG against Roborock entities concerns a request for deadline extensions related to patent EP 3 030 943. The court granted the extension, allowing defendants more time to file their responses and opposition due to the complexity of the matter and coordination with foreign parties. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines while maintaining process economy.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
This interim order in the UPC case involving Lenovo and ASUS focuses heavily on procedural matters related to a FRAND objection concerning EP patent 3 682 587. The court granted extensions for both parties to submit their arguments, allowing them to incorporate materials from parallel proceedings into the main litigation. Crucially, the decision confirmed future dates for interim hearings and oral arguments, keeping the infringement case active but focused on procedural progress.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB; STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS; Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl; Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order sets the stage for a complex pharmaceutical patent infringement case involving Sanofi against multiple defendants, including Accord Healthcare and STADA. The court confirmed the dates for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing, indicating that the case is moving toward substantive arguments. A key focus remains on assessing obviousness, requiring parties to prepare expert testimony regarding industry knowledge at the priority date.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP), Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB; STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS; Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl; Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order in a major pharmaceutical patent dispute between Sanofi and various generic competitors (Accord, STADA, Reddy, Zentiva) sets the stage for the final stages of litigation. The court confirmed the dates for the final interim conference and the oral hearing, focusing heavily on complex issues like obviousness related to clinical trial data. Furthermore, the judge addressed procedural concerns raised by defendants regarding the drafting style of claimant's briefs.
Sanofi SA and associated entities (including Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, etc.) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France, etc.
This procedural order addresses multiple infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466, involving Sanofi as the claimant and various generic manufacturers (Accord Healthcare, Zentiva, etc.) as defendants. The court confirmed key dates for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing in October 2025. Furthermore, the judge addressed procedural concerns raised by the parties regarding the review of EPO decisions and the standardization of legal briefs across different defendant groups.
Sanofi SA (and related Sanofi entities) v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., etc.
This procedural order addresses multiple infringement actions involving Sanofi and various defendants, including STADA and Accord Healthcare. The court confirmed the schedule for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing, which will focus heavily on complex issues of obviousness related to clinical trial data (Phase III TROPIC study). Practitioners should note the court's proactive approach in managing expert evidence and procedural fairness across multiple related proceedings.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
The UPC Local Division in Munich issued a procedural order setting a date for an interim hearing focused specifically on FRAND issues in the ongoing infringement case involving Lenovo and ASUS. This hearing is confidential and will be conducted in English, allowing parties to discuss sensitive licensing terms outside of public scrutiny. The decision highlights the court's ability to manage complex technical and contractual disputes within the UPC framework.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd.
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses jurisdictional objections raised by Motorola entities in a patent infringement case brought by Headwater Research LLC concerning wireless mobile devices. The court dismissed these objections, affirming its jurisdiction under the UPC Agreement. Crucially, the ruling clarifies the scope of Article 33(1)(b) EPCG, limiting its application and confirming that the main infringement proceedings will proceed to trial. This decision provides important guidance on how jurisdictional rules are interpreted in complex multi-defendant cases within the UPC.
Headwater Research LLC v.Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision by the Munich Local Division addresses jurisdictional objections raised in a complex infringement case involving Motorola and its supply chain partners, including Flextronics. The court dismissed the defendants' challenges regarding jurisdiction, allowing the main proceedings to continue. The ruling provides important clarification on how Art. 33 of the UPC Agreement applies when multiple parties are involved, particularly concerning non-infringing entities like logistics providers.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision addresses jurisdictional objections in a complex patent infringement case involving Headwater Research LLC against various Motorola entities and logistics providers. The court dismissed the defendants' objections, affirming its jurisdiction under Articles 33(1)(a) and (b) of the UPC Agreement. Crucially, the ruling clarifies the scope of Article 33(1)(b), stating it is an extension of jurisdiction but does not automatically permit unified claims against all parties without specific conditions. The main infringement proceedings will now proceed to a substantive hearing.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by both parties to stay ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 742 231. This decision allows Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH and XSYS entities to engage in settlement negotiations without the immediate pressure of litigation. The stay is tied to the timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings at the EPO, highlighting how UPC procedures can be managed alongside national/EPO actions.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
In this UPC procedural order, the court allowed Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. to join the ongoing infringement action as an assisting party (Streithilfe). This move is significant as it allows a third party to participate in supporting or challenging the claims between Swarco Futurit and Yunex GmbH. The decision primarily addresses procedural matters, including requests for cost security deposits, keeping the core patent dispute active but with expanded participation.
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.