Pending
101 pending decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Pending Decisions
101 cases | Page 3 of 4
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request from Disney to extend deadlines for filing its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation in an infringement action. The court granted the extension based on the agreement reached between the parties, acknowledging the complexities arising from parallel litigation and counsel's travel schedules. This case highlights how procedural flexibility is utilized within the UPC framework to ensure fair process while managing complex international disputes.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek Computer Inc.
In this UPC case involving Lenovo against ASUSTEK entities, the Local Division issued an order consolidating the proceedings. The court decided to hear both the infringement claim brought by Lenovo and the counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 682 587 together. This procedural step is significant as it streamlines the litigation process, allowing the validity of the patent to be assessed concurrently with its alleged infringement.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Lenovo initiated infringement proceedings against ASUSTek and its subsidiaries before the UPC Local Division in Munich regarding EP patent 3 682 587. The court issued a procedural order setting out the next steps in the litigation. Key dates were established for an interim video conference hearing (September 2025) and the main oral proceedings (November 2025). This case highlights the structured, multi-stage nature of UPC infringement actions.
Sanofi SA (and various Sanofi entities) v.Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
In a procedural order concerning multiple infringement actions, the UPC Local Division Munich set key dates for the litigation between Sanofi and Zentiva. The court scheduled an Interim Conference via videoconference on July 17, 2025, followed by in-person oral hearings from October 14 to 17, 2025. This decision moves the complex pharmaceutical patent dispute closer to a substantive hearing, allowing both parties time to prepare their arguments and counterclaims.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC decision is a procedural order issued by the Local Division of Munich in an infringement case involving Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz GmbH regarding EP patent 3 215 288. The court addressed scheduling conflicts, rescheduling the interim hearing to May 28, 2025, and confirming the oral hearing for July 1, 2025. This order sets clear procedural timelines, including a deadline of May 14, 2025, for written submissions.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics addresses several key motions, including claim amendments and confidentiality. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, a crucial step allowing the claimant to adapt its legal strategy based on the defendant's recent submissions. While other requests were dismissed, this decision keeps the infringement and revocation proceedings alive as they move toward an Interim Conference.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural matters, specifically an application for a cost decision and related requests for confidentiality protection. The Court has signaled its intent to grant Meril unlimited access to the costs proceedings while ensuring that restrictions under Rule 262.2 RoP prevent disclosure of confidential information to third parties or the public. This ruling highlights the delicate balance UPC courts must strike between transparency in litigation and protecting sensitive commercial data.
Sanofi SA (and associated Sanofi entities) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. (and associated Accord Healthcare entities, STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France)
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addresses multiple infringement actions involving Sanofi and various generic competitors, including Accord Healthcare and Stada. The court did not rule on the merits but instead focused heavily on case management, setting specific financial values for both the claims and counterclaims. Sanofi was immediately tasked with correcting significant deficiencies in its formal submissions regarding jurisdiction and scope of the claims, highlighting the strict procedural requirements within the UPC.
Sanofi Mature IP / Sanofi SA 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 addresses a corporate restructuring within the Sanofi group, specifically concerning the patent ownership of EP 2 493 466. The UPC Court accepted the request to substitute the original claimant, Sanofi Mature IP, with its successor entity, Sanofi SA. This decision ensures that the ongoing infringement actions and related counterclaims continue seamlessly under the new legal proprietor. For practitioners, this highlights the UPC's flexibility in accommodating complex corporate changes without disrupting active litigation.
Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U.
This Procedural Order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses complex issues of confidentiality and evidence access across several parallel infringement actions involving Sanofi (Claimant) and Accord Healthcare (Respondent). The core dispute revolved around how a key witness statement (Exhibit No. D.4), containing sensitive commercial data, should be handled by the Court. The Judge issued detailed instructions to balance the need for full disclosure in litigation against the protection of trade secrets.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This decision addresses the complex issue of managing a large number of auxiliary requests filed by Claimant 2 (Harvard College) in an application to amend a patent, while parallel opposition proceedings are ongoing at the EPO. The Court recognized that given the extensive validity attacks, limiting the amendments strictly is not feasible under the principle of fairness. Consequently, the proceedings were stayed pending the EPO's decision, and Harvard was instructed to consolidate its requests for submission shortly thereafter.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Limited initiated an infringement action against SharkNinja Europe and Germany concerning EP patent 2 043 492. In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Munich granted a suspension of both the main infringement proceedings and the associated counterclaim. This decision reflects a strategic pause agreed upon by both parties, allowing time for further negotiation or legal strategy before the merits of the case are addressed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd has initiated an infringement lawsuit against Netgear International Limited and its affiliates concerning European Patent EP 3 678 321. Crucially, the court has consolidated this infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation, meaning both sides will argue simultaneously on whether the patent is valid and if it is being infringed. This procedural consolidation sets the stage for a comprehensive trial in Munich.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
This UPC decision is a procedural order in an ongoing infringement and revocation case between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Netgear entities concerning EP patent No. 3 678 321. The court addressed the resignation of one of the technically qualified judges assigned to the panel. Consequently, the court mandated the reassignment of a new judge to maintain the integrity and continuity of the proceedings.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case UPC_CFI_152/2024 involves Netgear (claimant) and Huawei (respondent). The court addressed two key procedural matters: incorporating a relevant Qualcomm license agreement from a prior infringement case into the current non-infringement determination, and assigning an expert judge. The decision emphasizes judicial efficiency by linking proceedings and utilizing specialized expertise to handle complex cross-case issues.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order in the Edwards Lifesciences v Meril case focused on managing the complex infringement and revocation proceedings. Key issues included the claimant's request to amend its claims (e.g., including Romania) and the defendants' requests for a court expert. The Court set deadlines for parties to provide technical evidence, cost estimates, and clarified procedural steps moving toward the oral hearing.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC case involved Avago seeking provisional measures to halt Realtek's US litigation and the enforcement of German injunctions, arguing that these actions violated fundamental European justice rights. The court initially considered the request but later issued a correction to its order. Crucially, the final ruling allowed the US-based legal proceedings to continue regarding claims other than those related to the alleged license breach, keeping the matter pending.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order in a UPC infringement case involving Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz addresses complex requests for expanding the scope of claims, particularly concerning Romania's accession to the UPC. The court proposed a unified approach to allow all parties' amendments to proceed, thereby streamlining the litigation process. This decision highlights the Court's focus on procedural fairness and efficiency when dealing with evolving jurisdictional scopes.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH, Myriad GmbH, Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad Genetics Inc., Eurobio Scientific
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Court mandated that the Claimant, GXD-Bio Corporation, provide security for legal costs to the Defendants. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant's financial standing raised legitimate concerns about cost recovery. Although the initial request was for a default judgment upon failure to comply, the Court granted a seven-week extension until January 15, 2025, allowing the Claimant time to arrange the necessary deposit.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a request for confidentiality protection regarding sensitive recipe information in an ongoing infringement case. The court balanced the need for trade secret protection against the parties' right to conduct their defense. Ultimately, while granting strict confidentiality measures, the Court rejected the respondent's attempt to severely restrict access, allowing all named claimants to view the protected documents.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S
Headwater Research LLC initiated an infringement action against Samsung Electronics entities before the UPC. This preliminary order addresses procedural matters, specifically concerning the production of evidence (RoP190). The case remains in the early stages of litigation as the court manages the discovery process.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC decision concerns an application by a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) to intervene in a patent infringement and revocation case involving NEC Corporation and TCL entities. The core issue was whether the Applicant had a sufficient legal interest to participate, given that the dispute involved FRAND licensing obligations under the HEVC standard. The Court ultimately permitted the intervention but imposed strict confidentiality measures on the access to sensitive negotiation details.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision concerns the intervention of a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities. The court affirmed that such administrators possess a genuine legal interest in the outcome, despite their involvement being primarily economic. This ruling clarifies the scope of 'legal interest' for third-party interveners in UPC proceedings, particularly those managing Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).
NEC Corporation v.TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addresses the admissibility of an intervention by a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities. The Court affirmed that such administrators possess a genuine legal interest, despite their involvement being primarily economic (licensing royalties). This ruling is significant for SEP practitioners as it clarifies the standing of patent pool managers in UPC proceedings, allowing them to participate actively to protect their FRAND obligations.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
In this UPC infringement case, Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought to proceed against Xiaomi and its affiliates regarding EP3024163. The defendants requested a suspension of the proceedings pending a final decision from the UK High Court on FRAND licensing terms. The rapporteur determined that this complex issue required a full panel ruling. Consequently, the matter was referred to the panel for decision during or after the scheduled oral hearings.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues arising from a patent infringement suit filed by Headwater Research LLC against several Motorola and Flextronics entities. The core dispute centered on the incorrect initial naming of one defendant, 'Lenovo EMEA DC,' which was later corrected to 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.' The court ruled that this error did not bar the proceedings but instead ordered a formal correction of the name and address in the case file. Furthermore, the court granted an application to update the registered business address for another defendant.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed an issue where the claimant initially misidentified one of its defendants as 'Lenovo EMEA DC' instead of 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.'. The respondents argued that this error rendered the claim inadmissible against that party. However, the court found that this was merely a naming error and not a fatal procedural defect. Consequently, the court corrected the defendant's name and address, ordered re-service of the claim, and allowed the infringement proceedings to continue.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC infringement case between Huawei and Netgear, the court issued an order revoking a previous decision to appoint a translation expert. The revocation was based on the parties' mutual agreement that critical Chinese-language documents related to the patent were identical. This procedural step simplifies the ongoing litigation, allowing the case to proceed without the need for external linguistic verification.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Stephen George Edrich; Belkin GmbH; Belkin International, Inc; Belkin Limited; Marc Gary Cooper; Paul John McKenna
This UPC decision is a procedural order concerning the infringement case involving Philips IP Ventures B.V. against several defendants, including Belkin GmbH. The core issue addressed was the request to postpone the oral hearing due to parallel proceedings and process efficiency considerations. The court granted this request, rescheduling the hearing for October 23, 2024. This highlights the UPC's procedural mechanisms allowing parties and the court to manage complex litigation schedules.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH; Netgear Inc.; Netgear International Limited
Huawei Technologies initiated an infringement action against Netgear entities regarding the Wi-Fi 6 standard, asserting ownership of EP 3 611 989, which is declared essential for the standard. The defendants raised multiple counterclaims, including invalidity and non-infringement arguments. The UPC Local Division in Munich issued a procedural order setting the case for oral hearings in October 2024 and appointing an expert to translate complex technical documents, indicating that the case will proceed to detailed examination.
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.