Diese Anordnung wurde durch den Vorsitzenden
96 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
96 cases indexed | Page 3 of 4
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a cost determination proceeding initiated by Edwards Lifesciences against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. While the court found that the respondents were liable for the procedural costs totaling EUR 244,000 (including amounts agreed upon in earlier proceedings), it definitively rejected the claimant's request to have these costs paid with interest. The ruling clarifies a critical distinction within UPC procedure: while damages claims may include compensation for time value of money, standard cost reimbursement does not automatically carry an interest component unless explicitly provided by law.
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.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
In this procedural order from the Munich Local Division, the court granted a short extension of deadlines requested by the claimant's counsel due to documented health issues. The case involves both infringement and invalidity proceedings concerning EP 3 030 471. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to grant extensions when credible medical reasons are presented, while also imposing strict conditions for proving those claims.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses a procedural motion for an extension of deadlines in ongoing infringement and invalidity proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024; UPC_CFI_609/2024). The claimant, Snowpixie Co., Ltd., requested additional time due to the temporary health issues of its legal counsel. The court granted this extension until December 27, 2024, provided the counsel can further substantiate their condition on the original deadline date. This highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines when genuine hardship is demonstrated.
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v.pharma-aktiva GmbH
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG successfully obtained provisional measures against multiple defendants, including pharma-aktiva GmbH and various Aldi/Hofer group entities, regarding the alleged infringement of EP 1 993 363 B1. The patent covers a specific composition used to combat ectoparasites. The court issued an immediate injunction prohibiting the manufacture and sale of the infringing product in Germany and Austria, alongside imposing significant penalty payments (Zwangsgeld). This decision highlights the broad reach of UPC provisional measures against large retail groups.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc.
Huawei sought a provisional measure (Anti-Suit/Anti-Enforcement Injunction) against Netgear, arguing that Netgear's US antitrust lawsuit threatened its European patent rights related to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei contended that such an injunction would constitute an unlawful interference with its property rights in Germany. Although the court recognized the potential illegality of such a measure under German law, it ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures.
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.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a motion filed by the defendants (OROPE and OPPO) seeking to suspend the proceedings related to EP 2 568 724 and postpone the announcement date. The court rejected these requests, emphasizing that procedural fairness requires both parties to actively participate in the process. The ruling underscores that unilateral attempts to delay or halt a case without mutual agreement or compelling justification will be unsuccessful.
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.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought permission to introduce new evidence regarding the respondent's offering of a 'Barryvox S' device with voice control. The court ultimately rejected this request. While existing interim measures protect against infringement by the 'Barryvox S2', the introduction of the 'Barryvox S' requires careful procedural handling, balancing the claimant's need for information against the respondents' right to be heard within the limited time frame.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG
In a complex infringement and revocation case concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order. The defendants sought to delay proceedings by requesting time to respond to an appellate court's decision. The Court rejected this motion, indicating that the main substantive proceedings are moving forward without further delays based on the appeal ruling. This highlights the strict procedural management of UPC cases.
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.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this procedural matter, Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought permission to call its expert witness as a formal witness during the oral hearing concerning a FRAND counterclaim. The Mannheim Local Division denied the request, emphasizing that once the interim proceedings are formally concluded, further substantive requests are highly restricted under UPC rules. The court also clarified that an expert's role is to present specialized opinions, which differs fundamentally from providing testimony on disputed facts.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for complex oral hearings in UPC case UPC_CFI_210/2023. The proceedings are highly structured, dedicating one day to technical infringement and validity issues, and a second day to the critical FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) aspects of the dispute. Given the involvement of OPPO and Panasonic, this case is significant for understanding how the UPC manages intertwined technical disputes with complex antitrust/FRAND claims.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung), the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf decided to consolidate the proceedings between Grundfos Holding A/S and Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court ruled that it would jointly examine both the infringement claim brought by Grundfos and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu. This decision aims to enhance procedural efficiency, ensuring a unified legal interpretation across both claims.
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.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH; S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG sought provisional measures against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, alleging that their product infringed on EP 3 685 783 B1 related to laser fibers for vein treatment. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately denied the request for an injunction. The court found that the claimant did not meet the necessary threshold of demonstrating exceptional harm or irreparable damage required for provisional relief, despite the long-standing competition.
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.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.
This UPC decision addresses a request for public access to case files by a third party (DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.). The court analyzed the balance between the applicant's interest in obtaining documents and the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing infringement proceedings. Ultimately, the court denied the access request, emphasizing that procedural fairness and confidentiality must prevail over speculative or indirect interests.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG / Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In this provisional measures case, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought the release of a 500,000 EUR cash deposit previously provided to secure an ex-parte injunction. The claimant successfully argued that she had replaced the cash deposit with a bank guarantee, demonstrating a legitimate interest in exchanging the security due to practical constraints. The court ruled in favor of Ortovox, ordering the release of the funds, thereby establishing clear guidelines on the flexibility of security requirements within UPC proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a request for trade secret protection (R. 262A VerfO) in connection with patent litigation involving Panasonic and OPPO/OROPE. The core dispute centered on the scope of confidentiality, specifically regarding licensing agreements and negotiations. While the court upheld some level of protection for sensitive information, it simultaneously limited access rights requested by the defendants to ensure procedural fairness across parallel UPC and national proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a motion for protective measures concerning confidential information related to patent licensing and FRAND negotiations in the case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court carefully balanced the claimant's need for secrecy regarding sensitive commercial data against the respondents' demands for broader access during litigation. Ultimately, the protection was partially granted, establishing strict rules on who can view the documents and for what purpose.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision is a procedural order in an infringement case involving Panasonic against OPPO and OROPE concerning an LTE patent (EP 2 568 724). The court highlighted the need for claimants to provide detailed technical interpretations of complex claims early in the proceedings. Crucially, the judge raised several doubts regarding the scope and necessity of the FRAND rate determination counterclaims filed by the respondents, signaling potential procedural hurdles for these types of ancillary requests.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS FRANCE Société à responsabilité limitée
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for deadline extensions in an infringement case involving Dolby International AB and ASUS entities. The core issue was balancing the standard two-month response period against the need to protect confidential business secrets under R. 262A VerfO. The court found that restricting access initially constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the extension of deadlines, thereby upholding procedural fairness for the claimant.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd; CUPOWER Europe GmbH
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division decided to consolidate the infringement lawsuit brought by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against CUPOWER entities with a counterclaim for patent revocation regarding EP 2 011 218 B1. The court justified this unified approach based on efficiency and the moderate complexity of the technology involved. This decision sets an important precedent for how UPC panels manage complex litigation, allowing them to address both infringement and validity simultaneously.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court addressed the validity of serving a statement of claim at an international trade fair. The court affirmed that a temporary business presence, such as a booth at a major exhibition, qualifies as a valid place for service of process under UPC rules. This decision is significant for patent practitioners involved in cross-border litigation, confirming practical methods for initiating proceedings against foreign entities.
Dyson Technology Ltd. v.SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Ltd. sought interim injunctions against SharkNinja for alleged infringement of EP 2 043 492, a patent covering hand-held vacuum cleaners. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the claims of both parties, meaning no provisional injunction was granted. Beyond the specific outcome, the decision provided important procedural guidance on timing and scope when applying for interim measures in UPC proceedings. This ruling reinforces the need for careful case preparation while acknowledging the practical constraints of summary relief.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning SEP EP 3096315, the court addressed a request by the defendants for extensive document disclosure related to the claimant's licensing history. The court ultimately rejected most of these requests, finding them too vague or superseded by the parties' own actions. This ruling reinforces the principle that while transparency is important in FRAND negotiations, broad demands for historical portfolio data are not automatically granted and must be narrowly tailored.
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.