Berichtersta
162 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
162 cases indexed | Page 5 of 6
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 402 415 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the claimant withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, confirmed the parties' cost agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to the claimant.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH for the release of a EUR 500,000 security deposit it had lodged with the Unified Patent Court in connection with ex parte interim measures granted against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 B1. After initially depositing the security to enable prompt enforcement, Ortovox subsequently obtained and provided a bank guarantee and sought release of the deposited amount. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the Registrar to release the deposited security, subject to the expiry of the respondents' right to seek review.
BEGO Medical GmbH v.CEAD USA B.V., CEAD B.V.
This order concerns a request by the defendant BEGO Medical GmbH to restrict access to its attorney cost estimates (Annexes ES8 and ES9) filed in a nullity action concerning EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court. The court rejected the request to restrict access from the opposing parties (CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V.) under Rule 262A, holding that the claimants needed full access to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of costs under Article 69 UPCA. However, the court granted the request to restrict public access under Rule 262.2, finding that the public's interest in individually negotiated attorney fees generally yields to the party's interest in confidentiality.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd & Others v.VusionGroup SA
This case concerns a procedural question before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding where a cost determination application must be filed when it follows an order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that cost determination applications must be filed at the Court of First Instance, even when they relate exclusively or partially to costs of appeal proceedings, and referred Hanshow's application to the Rapporteur of the Court of First Instance.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated July 11, 2024, concerning Apple's request to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the deadline for Ona Patents SL to file its response to the appeal. The court rejected Apple's acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in expediting the proceedings did not outweigh Ona's interests in a proper proceeding. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action by Ona against Apple based on EP 2 263 098, and Apple's prior request to change the procedural language from German to English, which had been rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered the referral of a counterclaim for revocation and the corresponding patent amendment request to the Central Chamber Paris. The court reasoned that since nearly all attacks against the patent in suit (EP 4 074 373) were already being pursued in a prior central revocation action filed by the first defendant, efficiency considerations favored having the Central Chamber decide on the counterclaim as well. The defendants' objections regarding the risk of divergent decisions, change of language, and the advanced stage of the central proceedings were rejected.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) to extend the deadline for filing their Duplik (reply) in a patent infringement case involving EP 3 024 163. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's Replik (rejoinder) was filed with numerous redactions serving as placeholders for later submissions, preventing them from preparing a complete response. The court held that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' is impermissible, but as an exception, ruled that the Duplik deadline had not yet begun to run.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement case involving EP 2 568 724. The court partially granted Panasonic's confidentiality requests regarding license negotiations and third-party patent license agreements, while rejecting broader requests. The court defined the scope of the confidentiality club, allowing access to procedural representatives in Mannheim and Munich proceedings and three named reliable persons.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 568 724, addressing Panasonic's request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure regarding information contained in its unredacted reply and annexes, as well as licensing negotiations between the parties. The defendants (OPPO) contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for additional personnel and external counsel. The court granted partial confidentiality protection, defining a limited confidentiality club and restricting use of the protected information to UPC proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
Order of the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC_CFI_210/2023 concerning patent EP2568724 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court granted the defendant's requests for extension of time (App_39329/2024 and App_39331/2024), extending deadlines for filing the duplik on the rejoinder regarding FRAND and the rejoinder on the reply to the FRAND counterclaim from July 17, 2024 to August 14, 2024.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH regarding EP 3 024 163. The court issued a consolidated confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, protecting information related to prior and ongoing license negotiations and internal business considerations. The court modified the preliminary order, limiting access to confidential information to specified persons and their legal representatives, and set a coercive penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per culpable violation.
AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This case concerns an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning EP 2 479 680. The defendants (AYLO entities) sought to restrict the plaintiffs' (DISH entities) access to information about video streaming processes disclosed in their reply and a witness statement. The court partially granted the application, classifying the streaming-related information as confidential and limiting access on the plaintiffs' side to their legal representatives, internal assistants, external experts upon request, and three specifically named corporate employees.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, relating to LTE mobile communication technology. The court issued directions and questions to the parties regarding claim interpretation under Rule 13(1)(n) RoP, the patent proprietor's response to the nullity counterclaim, the strict preclusion rule under Rule 30.2 RoP for patent amendments, and the legal interest (Rechtsschutzbedürfnis) for the defendants' FRAND counterclaim seeking determination of license rates.
Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent 1 838 002, in which the defendants (Tesla entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A for group-internal information contained in a late-filed written submission. The court granted the request, finding that while overall Tesla production figures and sales prices are publicly known, the specific numbers and average sales prices underlying the defendants' application were not publicly accessible. The plaintiff was restricted to disclosing the protected information only to specifically named employees, with potential penalties of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A) filed by the defendants (Tesla entities) in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent 1 838 002. The defendants sought protection for confidential business information contained in a late-filed submission, including vehicle numbers, sales prices, and financial calculations. The court granted the confidentiality protection, finding the information was credibly not publicly available, while allowing the plaintiff access through a limited number of named representatives.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Unified Patent Court decision.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Others
Nera Innovations Ltd. appealed a decision of the Local Chamber Hamburg rejecting its request to serve the complaint on two Chinese Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Germany. After filing the appeal, Nera sought partial withdrawal of the appeal against the two European Xiaomi entities (Netherlands and Germany), seeking to continue the appeal only against the Chinese entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the partial withdrawal, holding that Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE had a legitimate interest in remaining in the appeal proceedings since they had already been served and had filed responses.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.Patent Proprietors of EP 3 170 639 B1
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. In response to prior art documents first submitted with the nullity complaint, the patent proprietors acknowledged the nullity claim and surrendered the patent in full. Both parties declared the main proceedings moot under Rule 360 RoP. The court held that it is generally unfair to impose costs on a patent proprietor who immediately surrenders the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity action, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs while granting a 60% refund of court fees.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 3096315, in which the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) sought production of various license agreements under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure to support their FRAND defense. The court rejected the defendants' production requests as overly broad fishing expeditions, while reserving the right to issue production orders at a later stage depending on further submissions.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against 15 HP entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, which relates to video decoding devices for HEVC files. Following the defendants' request to summon NVIDIA Corporation as a third party, the plaintiff sought leave to limit its claims to exclude devices where the claimed video decoding means are implemented by graphics cards sold by NVIDIA or its affiliated companies. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the limitation as an unconditional restriction under R. 263.3 RoP, finding it was not merely a clarification but a permissible narrowing of the claim.
VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, and Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 883 277, which relates to electronic labels for displaying information in retail spaces. The appellant (VusionGroup SA, formerly SES-imagotag SA) sought interim measures against various Hanshow entities, alleging infringement of the patent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused products (various Nebular and Stellar Pro models) fell within the scope of claim 1 of the patent, particularly because it did not demonstrate that the antenna was positioned further toward the front face of the electronic label than the printed circuit board.
CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
In a nullity action concerning EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, the claimants (CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V.) requested court-ordered simultaneous interpretation from German into Dutch, alternatively English, for an interim hearing and oral hearing. The court rejected the request for court-funded interpretation under Rule 109(1) RoP, finding that the claimants already had three German-speaking legal representatives who had extensively written in German, and that the language skills of one additional representative did not justify court-ordered interpretation. However, the court granted the subsidiary request for interpretation at the claimants' own cost under Rule 109(2) sentence 2 RoP.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
Huawei sued NETGEAR entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei asserted is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought a production order against itself to introduce a Wi-Fi patent portfolio license agreement with Amazon (dated 5 March 2024) into the proceedings, together with confidentiality protection for its contents. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the provisional production and confidentiality orders and additionally allowed the use of the license agreement and its confidential information in a related parallel proceeding concerning EP 3 678 321.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc. sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience Inc. before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1 concerning methods and arrays for localized detection of nucleic acid in tissue samples. The court found that 10x Genomics had standing as the registered patent proprietor and that Curio Bioscience's product fell within the scope of patent claim 14. The court granted a partial injunction limited to the specific embodiment of claim 14, ordered mutual provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 100,000, and required 10x Genomics to post security of EUR 2,000,000 before enforcement.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The claimant, 10x Genomics, Inc., filed an infringement action against Curio Bioscience Inc. in German, but both parties subsequently agreed to switch the procedural language to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The court approved the joint request and ordered the proceedings to continue in English.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Huawei sued Netgear entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which is essential for the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Netgear raised an exhaustion defense based on a Qualcomm chip in some accused embodiments and sought production of Huawei's August 2020 license agreement with Qualcomm. The Local Chamber Munich ordered Huawei to produce the agreement with confidentiality protections and a daily coercive fine of up to €20,000, while rejecting the remaining requests of both parties.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) that had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The appeal concerned proceedings in which 10x Genomics sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience regarding EP 2 697 391. The Court of Appeal held that the lower court's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of fairness under Article 49(5) EPGÜ and ordered English as the language of proceedings.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 838 002. The claimant (Avago) sued the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) for patent infringement, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court ordered that the main infringement action and both revocation counterclaims be heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, rejecting the option of referral to the Central Division since the claimant did not consent.
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.