Litigation
3 litigation decisions from Munich Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
3 cases | Page 1 of 1
Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States v.Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States
The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues arising from appeals filed by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against decisions of the Munich Local Division in three infringement proceedings involving Qualcomm. The court examined whether NST's appeals against the dismissal of its Rule 190 evidence production applications were admissible given the applicable 15-day time limit, and whether a new Rule 190 application filed for the first time during appeal proceedings was admissible. The court held that the appeals against the dismissal of the Rule 190 applications were inadmissible as they were filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period, and that the refiled Rule 190 application on appeal was inadmissible as it sought substantially the same evidence already rejected at first instance without new justifying facts.
Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States v.Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States
The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions arising from appeals filed by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against decisions of the Munich Local Division in three infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669, and EP 1 875 683. The central issues were whether NST's appeals against the dismissal of its Rule 190 evidence production applications were timely, and whether a new Rule 190 application filed for the first time during appeal proceedings was admissible. The Court held that the 15-day appeal period under Article 73(2)(a) UPCA and Rule 224.1(b) RoP applied to orders on Rule 190 applications, that NST's appeals were inadmissible as they were filed outside the mandatory time limit, and that the refiled Rule 190 application was inadmissible as it was substantially the same as the one already dismissed at first instance without any new facts justifying refiling.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, 1 Edwards Way, 92614, Irvi v.Meril Gmbh, Bornheimer Straße 135-137 - 53119 - Bonn – DE, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., M1‐M2, Meril Park, Survey No 1
This order was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in proceedings concerning the determination of damages for infringement of European Patent No. 3 669 828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation seeks damages and an order to lay open books against the Meril entities, which were previously found to have infringed the patent with respect to the Myval Transcatheter Heart Valve and the Myval System. The order sets procedural directions for the upcoming oral hearing, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the dispute (15 Mio. EUR), and arrangements for the videoconference hearing scheduled for 10 September 2026.
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.