Berichtersta
141 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
141 cases indexed | Page 5 of 5
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent 1 838 002. The defendants (Tesla entities) had filed a written submission outside the regular deadline regime and sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the applicable procedural rules for certain commercially sensitive information contained therein. The court granted the confidentiality protection, finding it credible that the requested information was not publicly accessible, and imposed restrictions on the plaintiff's internal access to the designated information.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of corporate documents from the plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited). The defendants sought the disclosure of Board of Directors resolutions of Avago group entities referenced in the power of attorney documents (Annexes K29 and K30), arguing doubts existed regarding the validity of the powers of attorney and the authorization for the transfer of the patent-in-suit. The plaintiff opposed the request, contending that the defendants' concerns had shifted from the admissibility of self-dealing transactions to internal corporate decision-making, and that there were no doubts that such decision-making had occurred.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Respondent
Nera Innovations Ltd. sought partial withdrawal of its appeal against two of four Xiaomi respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH), while continuing the appeal against Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. The appeal concerned a first-instance order from the Local Chamber Hamburg that had rejected Nera's requests to serve the complaint on two defendants via Xiaomi Germany. The Court of Appeal considered whether the partial withdrawal should be permitted, taking into account whether the statement of appeal grounds had already been served on the affected respondents and whether they had a legitimate interest in a decision being rendered in relation to them.
STAÛBLI TEC-SYSTEMS GMBH v.***
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 concerning a method for controlling the speed and positioning of a tool change carriage. In response to prior art documents submitted with the nullity action, the patent proprietors disclaimed the patent, rendering the main case moot under Rule 360. The court addressed the cost allocation, holding that it would generally be inequitable to impose costs on the patent proprietor who immediately disclaims the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity complaint.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns the defendants' application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of documents in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3096315. The defendants, OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., sought production of various license agreements (including those designated 'X' and 'Y') that the plaintiff Panasonic Holdings Corporation relied upon as reference points in FRAND negotiations, as well as other 3G/4G SEP license agreements. The order was issued by the presiding and reporting judge Dr. Tochtermann of the Local Chamber Mannheim, addressing the procedural status of the production requests following the plaintiff's unredacted submissions on the FRAND aspect.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, filed an infringement action on November 30, 2023, against fifteen HP-related entities across Europe, alleging infringement relating to HEVC-capable computers. The order addresses the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the claims (Klagebeschränkung) under Rule 263.1 and .3 of the Rules of Procedure.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3883277, which relates to electronic shelf labels for displaying information such as prices in retail environments. The appellant, VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA), challenged an order from the Local Chamber Munich dated December 20, 2023, in proceedings involving the respondents Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd and its German, French, and Dutch subsidiaries. The appeal concerned the interpretation of patent claims, the scope of protection, and alleged infringement in the context of an application for provisional measures.
CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. v.Respondent
This order concerns a nullity action regarding EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance, with German as the language of proceedings. The claimants, CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. (Dutch companies), requested simultaneous interpretation into Dutch, alternatively English, for both the interim hearing on May 29, 2024 and the oral hearing on August 23, 2024. The claimants argued that their managing directors, the responsible personnel, and their authorized representative Dr. Wim Maas do not speak German, and that as medium-sized enterprises they cannot be expected to provide multilingual case management.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Huawei Technologies for a production order against itself and a confidentiality order in proceedings alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei claims is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought to introduce into the proceedings a license agreement it concluded with Amazon on March 5, 2024, regarding its Wi-Fi patent portfolio, arguing that court-ordered confidentiality protection was necessary. The defendants, NETGEAR entities, were defending in part on the basis of an antitrust compulsory license (FRAND) defense. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann as rapporteur of the Munich Local Chamber.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1. Both parties jointly requested a change of the procedural language from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The court approved the request and ordered that the proceedings be conducted in English from the date of the order.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities regarding European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei asserts is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. The defendants raised an exhaustion defense, contending that some accused embodiments incorporate Qualcomm chips and that Huawei's August 2020 license agreement with Qualcomm covers its Wi-Fi 6 standard patents. The defendants applied for an order requiring Huawei to produce the Qualcomm license agreement, along with coercive penalties for non-compliance, while Huawei opposed production citing US court restrictions and alternatively sought confidentiality protections.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning the language of proceedings in a patent infringement dispute. Curio Bioscience Inc. appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance dated February 26, 2024, which had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2 697 391). The dispute arose in the context of a provisional measures application filed by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience before the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Court of Appeal addressed the application under Article 49(5) of the UPC Agreement regarding the use of the patent language as the language of proceedings.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 1 838 002, with Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited as the plaintiff alleging patent infringement against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation of the patent. The court addressed the procedural question under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court regarding whether the infringement action and revocation counterclaims should be heard together or separated. Both parties agreed that the action and counterclaims should be heard together before the same panel, and the court ordered that they be jointly heard before the Local Chamber Munich.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This order concerns an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to confidential information or evidence to certain persons during appeal proceedings. Curio Bioscience Inc., the appellant and defendant in the main proceedings before the Court of First Instance, sought to restrict access to a redacted document (Annex CR-1) filed in support of its appeal against the rejection of its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court of Appeal held that an unappealed order of the Court of First Instance under Rule 262A restricting access to certain information remains in effect after the conclusion of proceedings, including during appeal proceedings, unless otherwise specified.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315 before the Local Chamber Munich. Following an oral hearing on January 30, 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to confirm the settlement. The defendant consented to the settlement and both parties jointly requested its confirmation, confidentiality of its details, and noted that costs were already settled within the agreement.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This procedural appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned the time limit for filing a Statement of Defense after a claim extension to add a new patent. Huawei had originally filed an infringement action on June 1, 2023, based solely on EP 3611989, and later sought to extend the claim to include EP 3678321. The Local Division Munich allowed the extension, prompting Netgear to appeal. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the defendant must be afforded the same time limit to respond to a newly added patent as would apply if a fresh action had been filed regarding that patent.
NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning a procedural appeal filed by Netgear against a decision of the Local Division Munich that separated the portion of the action based on European Patent EP 3678321 from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The central legal principle established is that the principle of due process requires that when a new patent is added to an already pending action, the defendant must be granted the same time limit to file a statement of defense—and potentially a counterclaim for revocation—as would apply if a new action had been filed regarding that patent. During the interim hearing, Netgear conditionally withdrew certain requests subject to Huawei's agreement on an extended three-month response deadline.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding preliminary measures for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on December 16, 2023, all three NanoString entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on February 4, 2024. The applicants (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the proceedings be stayed due to the insolvency, and the respondents (NanoString) agreed. The Court of Appeal held that, under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, the proceedings did not need to be stayed because the insolvency occurred only after the close of oral hearings and the case was ready for decision.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. , OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license under Art. 33(3)(a) EPGÜ. The court further directed the Reporting Judge to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Netgear for shortening of time limits (acceleration of appeal proceedings) under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed an order of the Local Chamber Munich that granted Huawei's request to extend its claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321) in the main proceedings, which originally concerned only EP 3611989. The Court of Appeal rejected the application for acceleration, holding that filing on the last day of the applicable time limits did not justify shortening, given the respondent's interests and principles of due process, even though this could result in the statement of defense being filed in the first instance proceedings before the appeal is decided.
Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. against a cost order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings initiated by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 763 331 relating to a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses. After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist declaration that Edwards accepted, the first-instance court found the interim measures moot, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Meril to bear the costs up to €200,000. Meril appealed seeking to shift the costs to Edwards and requested suspensive effect of the appeal.
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.