Pending
101 pending decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Pending Decisions
101 cases | Page 2 of 4
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S, Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This procedural order in the BioMarin v Ascendis Pharma case sets critical dates for the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP patent 3 175 863. The court scheduled an interim conference for January 9, 2026, and a full oral hearing for March 18, 2026. Furthermore, the panel agreed to allocate a technically qualified judge in biotechnology, signaling the move toward substantive examination of the complex biotech patent.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This interim order in the UPC case between Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz focuses heavily on procedural consolidation. The court mandated that the claimant, Heraeus, submit a consolidated version of its formal claims by June 11, 2025. This move aims to streamline the proceedings, especially concerning how infringement claims relate to counterclaims for revocation across different jurisdictions. The parties are also urged to resume settlement discussions and establish a cost comparison.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA
This procedural order in the Belparts v. IMI Hydronic case confirms the court's decision to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation simultaneously, despite potential conflicts between arguments presented in different proceedings. The UPC Local Division Munich set specific dates for future hearings, including an interim videoconference and a full oral hearing scheduled for June 2026. This order highlights the procedural flexibility of the UPC while managing complex litigation strategies involving multiple claims.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a case concerning the infringement of EP 4 142 215, Huawei Technologies sought protective measures for its confidential business secrets against MediaTek. The UPC Local Division Munich ruled favorably, classifying specific documents as confidential and imposing strict duties of secrecy on all participants in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the robust protection available under the UPC framework for trade secrets during litigation, ensuring that sensitive information is not disclosed to third parties or the public.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB
Sanofi initiated infringement actions against Accord Healthcare and related entities concerning European patent EP 2 493 466, which covers a specific compound combination for treating advanced prostate cancer. The UPC Local Division Munich issued a procedural order confirming the case schedule, including an interim conference in September 2025 and the main oral hearing in October 2025. This ruling moves the litigation into its substantive phase, setting the stage for detailed arguments on infringement and validity.
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.
Sanofi initiated multiple infringement actions against various generic manufacturers, including Accord Healthcare and STADA, concerning the use of a specific compound combination for treating prostate cancer (EP 2 493 466). This procedural order confirms the court's schedule, setting key dates for interim conferences and the main oral hearing in October 2025. The case is currently moving through its written phase toward substantive litigation.
Sanofi SA (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
Sanofi initiated multiple infringement actions against Accord Healthcare concerning the use of a specific compound combination for treating prostate cancer (EP 2 493 466). This procedural order confirms the court's schedule, setting key dates for interim conferences and the main oral hearing in October 2025. The parties are now moving into the substantive phase of the litigation after initial filings.
Sanofi SA (and various Sanofi entities) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. (and various Accord Healthcare entities, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France, etc.)
Sanofi initiated multiple infringement actions against various defendants, including Accord Healthcare and STADA Nordic ApS, concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The UPC Local Division Munich issued a procedural order confirming the litigation schedule, setting deadlines for written submissions, and confirming dates for interim and oral hearings in late 2025. This case highlights the complex multi-defendant nature of pharmaceutical infringement suits within the unified patent court framework.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In a recent procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed scheduling issues in an infringement action brought by Maxell against Samsung. The court granted a request to harmonize deadlines for all defendants, setting a uniform service date and subsequent deadline for filing the Statement of Defence. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's ability to manage complex multi-defendant litigation across various jurisdictions efficiently.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In a significant procedural development concerning solar panel technology, the UPC Local Division Munich granted an extension to multiple defendants. The case involves Chinese claimants asserting infringement against several LONGi-related entities regarding European patent EP 4 372 829. This order allows all parties sufficient time to prepare their defenses and counterclaims for revocation, keeping the core dispute alive.
Promosome LLC v.Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer AB (and associated BioNTech entities)
Promosome LLC initiated an infringement action against Pfizer and its affiliates concerning various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants protected by EP 2 401 365. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts related to certain pre-June 2023 sales, citing the principle of non-retroactivity in international law. The Court acknowledged its subject matter competence but deferred the conclusive decision on the jurisdictional challenge to the main proceedings, allowing the case to proceed.
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.
Promosome LLC initiated an infringement action against BioNTech and Pfizer regarding various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants, citing EP 2 401 365. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that occurred before the UPCA came into force (specifically concerning the BA.1 variant). The Court ruled that while its competence is not retroactive, it defers the resolution of this jurisdictional challenge to the main proceedings, allowing the infringement action to proceed for now.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH; Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.; Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich relates to an ongoing infringement action involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril entities concerning European patent EP 3669828. The claimant sought an authentic paper copy of a prior decision for enforcement purposes, which was granted by the court. This ruling is significant as it streamlines the administrative process necessary to move from judgment to execution within the UPC framework.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed an issue of service in a solar technology infringement case involving Jinko Solar and LONGi Solar. The court determined that despite a defendant failing to collect a registered letter containing the statement of claim, the attempted service was valid under the Rules of Procedure. This ruling ensures procedural efficiency by establishing a deemed date of service for the defendant, allowing the main infringement action to move forward.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.Soltech Energy GbR
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed issues of service on defendants. The Court confirmed that despite one defendant failing to collect a registered letter notification for two weeks and subsequently refusing acceptance, the statement of claim was deemed validly served according to Rule 271.6.b RoP. This ruling ensures procedural efficiency by establishing a clear date of service, allowing the infringement case against Soltech Energy GbR to move forward.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed the continuation of a complex infringement case involving 10x Genomics and Bruker. After significant delays and disputes over the number of auxiliary requests filed by one claimant, the Court ruled that the proceedings should immediately continue. The decision highlighted the importance of balancing proportionality with the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, especially when procedural hurdles are resolved.
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, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural matter concerning a patent infringement action involving EP 2 401 365, the UPC Court addressed the request for security for costs. The Claimant, Promosome LLC, was ordered to deposit EUR 1.5 million to cover potential legal expenses of the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer group). Crucially, while the court granted the security requirement based on party agreement, it firmly rejected the premature demand by the Defendants for a default judgment under Rule 355 RoP, maintaining procedural integrity.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S; Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich rejected the preliminary objection raised by Ascendis Pharma against BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.'s infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 175 863. The Court ruled that BioMarin had adequately established jurisdiction and competence by demonstrating alleged infringing acts within Germany. Consequently, the proceedings will continue to the main substantive phase, where the legal characterization of the disputed acts will be examined.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed requests for extensions and case management adjustments in a patent infringement action involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics. The court granted the requested extension, allowing Samsung more time to respond to key applications concerning claim amendments and case review. This decision highlights the Court's role in managing complex litigation timelines while also issuing guidance on efficient procedural practice.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
In a procedural order issued on March 19, 2025, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed case UPC_CFI_665/2024 (Adeia Guides Inc. v. Disney). The court rectified a minor typo in the existing scheduling order. This administrative step confirms that the infringement action remains active and sets the date for the oral hearing on January 15, 2026. While no substantive legal rulings were made, this highlights the ongoing procedural management of complex UPC litigation.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
Adeia Guides Inc. initiated infringement proceedings against The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates concerning European Patent EP 2 793 430. This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich confirms that the case will proceed as a dual action, encompassing both the infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation. Key dates have been set, including an interim conference in December 2025 and the main oral hearing in January 2026, signaling the active progression of this high-stakes IP dispute.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney Company Limited
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich sets the stage for a major infringement and revocation action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries regarding European Patent EP 2 793 430. The court confirmed that both parties would proceed with the full scope of claims, including the counterclaim for revocation. Key dates were set for the interim conference (December 4, 2025) and the oral hearing (January 15, 2026), moving the case into its substantive phase.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC decision addressed a critical procedural dispute regarding the timing of starting infringement proceedings. The Respondent (Sumi Agro) sought to revoke provisional measures because they argued that the court fees had not been 'received' by the Court before the deadline, thus missing the statutory window. The Court firmly rejected this interpretation, clarifying that 'paid' is sufficient under Rule 15(2) RoP, and starting proceedings simply means filing in the CMS. While the re-establishment application was dismissed, the decision granted leave to appeal due to fundamental questions of procedural law.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the Headwater v. Samsung case sets the stage for a complex UPC trial concerning patent infringement and revocation of EP 2 391 947. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date and formally established the financial scope of the dispute, valuing the claim at €2 million and the counterclaim at €3 million. While settlement discussions were noted, the court maintained strict procedural control over evidence and arguments, particularly regarding late-filed documents and invalidity attacks.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order from the Munich Local Division addresses complex issues arising in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 215 288. The court corrected an earlier decision regarding party substitution in the counterclaim and deferred a ruling on an application to bar proceedings (RoP362). By reserving the decision until after the main hearing, the UPC ensures that procedural rulings do not disrupt the planned unified trial schedule for both infringement and validity issues.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order addresses complex issues within a UPC infringement and revocation counterclaim case involving Heraeus and Vibrantz regarding EP 3 215 288. The court corrected previous orders concerning party substitution in the revocation proceedings. Crucially, the court deferred a decision on an application to bar the action based on prior national decisions until after the main hearing, prioritizing the smooth conduct of the overall trial.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This procedural order in the UPC case between Hand Held Products and Scandit AG confirms the upcoming oral hearing date for infringement proceedings related to EP 3 866 051. The court addressed several key procedural issues, including allowing a partial withdrawal of claims and setting the financial value of the entire dispute at €7.5 million. While no substantive ruling was made on infringement or revocation, the order provides clear guidelines on evidence presentation (e.g., use of PowerPoint) and the handling of delayed submissions.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
This UPC order addresses procedural rectifications requested by Meril GmbH in the infringement case concerning Edwards Lifesciences' heart valve patent (EP 3 646 825). The defendants sought corrections to technical descriptions, jurisdictional statements, and references to prior art/expert opinions within the original decision. The court accepted several of these amendments, ensuring accuracy in the record while maintaining the ongoing nature of the dispute.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
Syngenta Limited initiated an infringement action against Sumi Agro entities concerning European patent EP 2 152 073, which relates to crop protection technology. The Court of First Instance in Munich issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the case. Both parties are summoned to participate in the Interim Conference and the subsequent Oral Hearing, where the core issues of infringement and potential revocation will be debated.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation initiated an infringement action against Meril GmbH and its affiliates concerning European patent EP 3669828. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a procedural order scheduling the case for an oral hearing on February 11, 2025. This initial step moves the complex dispute from filing to active litigation in Munich. This case is significant as it involves major players in the medical device industry utilizing the UPC framework.
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.