Berichtersta
162 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
162 cases indexed | Page 3 of 6
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning ILME's request to stay first instance proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich pending the outcome of its appeal. ILME had appealed the Local Chamber's rejection of its R. 19 RoP objection regarding the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal rejected the stay request, finding that judicial efficiency was better served by seeking a prompt decision on the jurisdiction question rather than suspending the first instance proceedings.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft & Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an appeal filed by ILME against an order of the Local Chamber Munich that rejected ILME's objection under R. 19 RoP. Phoenix Contact, the respondent, requested a three-week extension to file its response to the appeal, citing the complexity of arguments and workload. The Court of Appeal granted only a three-day extension until April 7, 2025, emphasizing the principle of equality of arms and the need for an efficient resolution of the jurisdictional question.
AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB (Application under Rule 262 RoP in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH)
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning an application under Rule 262 of the Rules of Procedure for access to court file documents in a patent infringement case (EP 2 568 724) between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO/OROPE. The applicant law firm AMPERSAND sought access to all pleadings and evidence, citing general and scientific information interests. The court granted limited access, ordering the plaintiff to provide redacted versions of specified documents on an encrypted data carrier or data room, while rejecting the broader request.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. and an unnamed specialist dealer at the IDS 2025 trade fair in Cologne. The applicant alleged that the respondents' 'DLyte' Compact Series machines (DLyte 1D, DLyte 10D, DLyte 100D) infringed its patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application in part, ordering an inspection of the DLyte 1D and DLyte 100D machines at the trade fair stand by an expert and court bailiff, subject to detailed procedural conditions, while rejecting certain additional requests.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.Former Patent Proprietors (EP 3 170 639)
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 at the Central Division Paris. The former patent proprietors immediately acknowledged the revocation and surrendered the patent ex tunc. The Court of First Instance ordered Stäubli to bear the costs, finding that Stäubli introduced new prior art for the first time in the revocation action without prior warning. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed Stäubli's appeal, confirming that Stäubli must bear the costs of both the first instance and appeal proceedings.
Nichia Corporation v.Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 323 178 B1. The parties settled their infringement dispute during the written procedure, and the court confirmed the settlement. The court also ordered a partial reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff, amounting to 9,000 EUR, and set the value of the infringement action at 1,000,000 EUR.
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 37.2 RoP, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Hartmann Packaging A/S and the counterclaim for revocation filed by the Omni-Pac defendants. The judge-rapporteur was instructed to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The court rejected both parties' applications under Rule 36 RoP for leave to exchange further pleadings in the infringement proceedings. The plaintiff had improperly introduced new arguments about equivalent patent infringement in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation without first obtaining leave, and its subsequent formal application was filed too late and lacked sufficient justification.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application by the defendant under R 36 RoP for leave to file a further pleading. The defendant sought to introduce a January 6, 2025 decision of the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office that fully invalidated the corresponding Chinese patent based on the same prior art. The court rejected the application, finding the request was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese decision without justification, the decision was submitted only in Chinese rather than the German procedural language, and granting leave would prejudice proper preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. – Request for Inspection of Files (UPC_CFI_156/2024) v.Ex Parte
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of files under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in evidence preservation proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The court granted Chainzone's request for file inspection, finding no reasons to deny access, and allowed SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. ten days to identify any personal data to be redacted under data protection regulations.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The Local Chamber Mannheim found infringement of the patent, dismissed the revocation and FRAND counterclaims, and ordered injunctive relief, recall, information/accounting, and provisional damages of EUR 250,000, subject to a EUR 10 million security.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a revocation counterclaim and a FRAND counterclaim seeking a court-determined license. The Local Chamber Mannheim found the patent infringed and valid, partially granted the infringement action, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and dismissed the FRAND counterclaim, ordering the defendants to bear the costs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Before the Local Chamber Mannheim, the parties — Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH as defendants — reached a settlement and jointly withdrew the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent No. EP 2 568 724. The withdrawal was filed after the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court heard a patent infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 548 648, owned by Rematec GmbH & Co KG, relating to a mill for comminuting grinding material such as wood chips. The court found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D3 and D9, particularly regarding the feature of ribs arranged at an angle to the circumferential direction. The patent was declared fully invalid, the infringement action was dismissed, and costs were split 3/4 to the claimant and 1/4 to the defendant.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja sought, and Dyson agreed to, either a suspension of the cost assessment proceedings or alternatively an extension of the deadline to file a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction and ordering Dyson to pay SharkNinja's costs. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests as inadmissible, holding that the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP to file a cost assessment application begins with service of the substantive decision in the main proceedings, not with service of an order on interim measures.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court overturned a decision by the Local Division Hamburg which had held that the UPC lacked jurisdiction to quantify damages following a final national infringement judgment. The court ruled that the UPC has jurisdiction for a standalone claim for determination of damages after a national court has established patent infringement and the infringer's obligation to pay damages, and that this jurisdiction extends to infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the European patent was still in force at that time.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message functionality. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that the defendants' 'Barryvox S2' device infringed the patent, while rejecting the defendants' counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and damages, while partially dismissing the infringement claim and declining to order publication of the decision.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message output during search operations. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The court found direct and indirect infringement by the accused 'Barryvox S2' device, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, information, and damages, while allocating costs predominantly to the plaintiff.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
This is a cost determination order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction proceeding. The parties had agreed out of court on the reimbursement amounts (EUR 195,000 for first instance representation, EUR 11,000 in court fees, and EUR 38,000 for appeal representation), totaling EUR 244,000. The sole disputed issue was whether Edwards was entitled to interest on the reimbursed costs at five percentage points above the German base rate. The court rejected the interest claim, holding that neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure provide a legal basis for interest in cost determination proceedings.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of their appeal. The appeal had been filed precautionarily against an order of the Local Division Mannheim requiring them to provide €800,000 in security for Aylo's procedural costs. The Court granted the alternative request, ordering reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees, but rejected the request for full reimbursement.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321. Both parties agreed that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation should be heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, and the panel concurred. The court ordered the consolidation of the proceedings and scheduled an interim hearing for January 16, 2025, and an oral hearing for March 25, 2025.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber of Hamburg concerning patent EP2642632. The Rapporteur rejected the defendants' (Xiaomi entities) request for early dismissal of the plaintiff's (Nera Innovations Ltd.) conditional requests to amend the patent under R. 30 RoP and corresponding amendments to the claim requests under R. 263 RoP. The court held that the substantive examination of these amendment requests should be reserved for the panel's final decision at the oral hearing, rather than decided as a preliminary matter under R. 334(h) RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning EP4108782. The court confirmed the judge-rapporteur's rejection of Harvard's third request to amend the patent, holding that under Rule 30.2 RoP, a delay of approximately three months between the reason for the amendment (the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion of August 2, 2024) and the filing of the request (October 25, 2024) was too long. The court ruled that the patent proprietor's subjective expectations regarding procedural delay are irrelevant, and the question must be assessed objectively.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH, and Belkin Limited
This case concerns an application by Koninklijke Philips N.V. for the imposition of a coercive fine (Zwangsgeld) against the Belkin entities for non-compliance with an information order (Auskunft) issued in a main infringement decision dated September 13, 2024, regarding EP 2 867 997 B1. The Local Chamber Munich held that while the defendants were not required to provide the information in electronic form (since this was not specifically requested), they had provided incomplete information. A total coercive fine of €46,000 was imposed, and appeal was admitted.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning the correct date of service of a patent infringement claim. The court determined that the statement of claim filed on November 6, 2024, regarding EP 3 764 271, was served on the defendant in Switzerland on November 20, 2024, rather than the November 23, 2024 date automatically recorded by the Case Management System.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction removes the legal basis for a subsequent penalty order imposed for alleged violations of that injunction. The Court held that the setting aside of a preliminary injunction under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the injunction is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning. Consequently, the Court set aside the penalty order of €100,000 imposed on NanoString, rejected 10x's applications, ordered 10x to bear the costs, and directed the Registry to refund the amount paid by NanoString.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division Munich in favor of Dyson Technology Limited against SharkNinja. The dispute centered on European Patent EP 2 043 492, directed to a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a cyclonic separating apparatus. The Court of Appeal set aside the preliminary injunction, finding that Dyson had not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the attacked SharkNinja embodiments infringed claim 1, specifically because the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the accused products used a cyclonic separating apparatus employing centrifugal force as required by feature 1.3 of the patent.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The defendants in a patent infringement case concerning EP 2 568 724 filed a last-minute request to stay the proceedings and cancel the scheduled announcement date of November 22, 2024, or alternatively to postpone it to at least December 6, 2024. The Local Chamber Mannheim rejected both the main and alternative requests, finding that no joint application for stay existed under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure and that no circumstances justified a stay under Rule 295(m).
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to radio communication devices and methods essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a revocation counterclaim and a FRAND counterclaim seeking court-determined license terms. The Local Chamber Mannheim found partial infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim and the FRAND counterclaim, and ordered the defendants to bear the costs.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, in which the plaintiff Ortovox sought leave under Rule 36 RoP to file further pleadings after learning that the defendants were also offering the 'Barryvox S' with voice control, in addition to the previously attacked 'Barryvox S2'. The court rejected the application, finding that the plaintiff was already protected by confirmed provisional measures regarding the Barryvox S2, and that the Barryvox S was not part of the proceedings, requiring further submissions and response time that could not be accommodated before the scheduled oral hearing.
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.