Diese Anordnung wurde durch den Vorsitzenden
96 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
96 cases indexed | Page 3 of 4
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321. Both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim, and the court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with a 40% reimbursement of court fees.
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.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent No. 3 678 321. The technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon resigned pursuant to Art. 9(2) of the Statutes, necessitating the assignment of a replacement judge to ensure continuity of the panel.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning two related proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The court granted a short extension of time limits until December 27, 2024 for the plaintiff's representative to file the reply to the infringement action and the defense to the nullity counterclaim, based on preliminary substantiation of health-related impairments of the responsible attorney. The plaintiff's representative was ordered to further substantiate the health impairments within 20 days.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning two related proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The court granted a further extension of deadlines for the plaintiff's representative to file a reply to the infringement action and a defense to the counterclaim, based on the health-related incapacity of the responsible attorney. The deadlines were extended from December 23, 2024 to December 27, 2024, subject to further substantiation of the health impairments.
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v.pharma-aktiva GmbH, ALDI SÜD Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. oHG, ALDI Nord Deutschland Stiftung & Co. KG, ALDI SE & Co. KG, Hofer Kommanditgesellschaft
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG, the proprietor of European Patent EP 1 993 363 B1 concerning a composition for combating ectoparasites and their eggs, sought interim measures against pharma-aktiva GmbH and several Aldi/Hofer entities for alleged infringement through the sale of a competing lice spray. The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court granted the interim measures in part, ordering the respondents to cease certain manufacturing, offering, and distribution activities in Germany and Austria, with penalties of EUR 100 per unit for violations, and to surrender infringing products in their possession.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, Netgear Deutschland GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement and nullity counterclaim proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 215 288 (metal sintering preparation). The court addressed multiple requests including the review of a prior rejection of an amendment to add indirect infringement of a process claim, and requests by both parties to extend the proceedings to Romania following its accession to the UPC Agreement on September 1, 2024. The court granted the extensions to Romania for both the infringement claim and the nullity counterclaim, revised its prior order on indirect infringement, and established a new briefing schedule.
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).
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning confidentiality measures in infringement actions related to European Patent No. 3 215 288. The defendant Vibrantz sought to classify certain recipe/formulation information regarding sintering pastes as confidential and restrict access to a limited number of persons. The court granted secrecy protection but allowed access to the five named natural persons requested by the Heraeus plaintiffs, finding that the defendant had unnecessarily disclosed the exact recipe details in its submissions.
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.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The defendants (Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH) sought leave to file further written observations by October 28, 2024, in response to the Court of Appeal's order of September 25, 2024 in case UPC_CoA_182/2024. The presiding judge rejected the application, finding that the Court of Appeal's order provided no basis for allowing further pleadings in the main proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP3024163, owned by Panasonic Holdings Corporation, against ten Xiaomi entities. The defendants sought a stay of proceedings under Rule 295(l) and/or (m) RoP pending the UK High Court of Justice's decision on the final terms of a FRAND license agreement. The presiding judge and rapporteur referred the matter to the full panel, proposing that the decision be made during or after the already scheduled oral hearings in late November 2024 and late January 2025.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected the plaintiff's application to examine its own party expert as a witness in the oral hearing concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff sought the examination after the close of the interim proceedings, arguing that the deadline for its reply on the FRAND counterclaim was insufficient to address the opposing party's expert opinion. The court held that the application was procedurally improper and that the named person was not to be examined as a witness but rather to present expert opinions, which is not permissible under the Rules of Procedure.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court on September 16, 2024, in case UPC_CFI_210/2023 concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, sets out preparations for the oral hearing, including scheduling, hearing structure, participation logistics, language arrangements, and the value in dispute. The value in dispute was set at over 50 million euros, taking into account the defendants' FRAND counterclaim and the plaintiff's related applications.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court decided, pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by Grundfos Holding A/S and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. jointly before the same panel.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. The order revokes a prior direction appointing a translation expert after the parties agreed that the defendants' submitted translation could be used and that the relevant Chinese-language priority and application documents were identical with respect to the passages relevant to the dispute.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Stephen George Edrich, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc, Belkin Limited, Marc Gary Cooper, Paul John McKenna
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 2 372 863. The plaintiff, Philips IP Ventures B.V., requested postponement of the oral hearing originally scheduled for September 11, 2024, due to a rescheduled decision announcement in a parallel proceeding. The defendants consented, and the presiding judge granted the request, moving the hearing to October 23, 2024.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Düsseldorf Local Chamber rejected the applicant's request for provisional measures (interim injunction) against the respondents regarding European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1, which covers an optical fiber for treating venous diseases. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate the substantive necessity of interim measures, as its arguments regarding lost market share and customer loyalty were speculative and did not establish that monetary compensation would be insufficient. The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, and appeal was permitted.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities concerning European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1, which relates to Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) standard technology. The defendants raised non-infringement, exhaustion, and FRAND/competition law defenses, along with three counterclaims for revocation. The order addresses procedural matters including deadlines for submissions, appointment of a court expert for translations, and scheduling of the oral hearing.
In re Request by DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o. for Access to Case Files (SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH)
DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o., a competitor of the claimant SWARCO Futurit, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure to the pleadings and evidence in an ongoing patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717. The Local Chamber Vienna denied the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings and the protection of personal data outweighed DMV's asserted information interest, as DMV failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest justifying access.
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.
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.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.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff Dolby International AB sought a determination that the time limits for filing its reply to the statement of defense and its response to the counterclaim for revocation began running on May 28, 2024, when it was granted access to confidential information, or alternatively, an extension of those deadlines to July 28, 2024. The court extended both deadlines to July 28, 2024, finding that the initial restriction of access to confidential passages of the defendants' pleadings constituted an exceptional case justifying an extension, but rejected the request to deem the time limits as having started on May 28, 2024.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd & CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 2 011 218 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ and Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG and the counterclaim for revocation filed by the CUPOWER defendants together in a single proceeding. The decision was based on efficiency considerations, the moderate complexity of the technology, and the need for early assignment of a technically qualified judge.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order permitting service of the statement of claim on the defendant at a trade fair stand in Amsterdam. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, a trade fair stand can constitute a temporary place of business where service may be effected, provided that deliveries are also being promoted there, which is typically the case.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Chamber Munich, alleging infringement of European Patent 2 043 492 (relating to hand-held vacuum cleaners) by SharkNinja's Shark Detect Pro models. The court granted the injunction, ordering SharkNinja to cease offering and supplying the infringing models in Germany and France, subject to a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation, while requiring Dyson to initiate main proceedings within 31 calendar days or 20 working days.
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.
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.