Judge Profile

Dr Daniel Vo

6 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

6 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent granted · Oct 20, 2025

Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_559/2025

This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing a patent infringement action when parties reach an out-of-court settlement. The Court permitted Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong to withdraw its claim against LONGi Solar and related entities, provided no party had a legitimate interest in the merits of the case. Furthermore, the Claimant was granted reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid.

patent granted · Jan 28, 2025

Qualcomm Incorporated v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_2710/2025

Qualcomm Incorporated initiated a patent infringement action against several mobile technology companies, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd. However, before any substantive decision was reached, Qualcomm filed a request to withdraw the suit due to reaching a settlement with Defendant 1. The UPC Local Division Munich permitted this withdrawal, declaring the proceedings closed. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding voluntary withdrawal and clarifies the rules governing court fee reimbursement in such scenarios.

patent granted · Jan 24, 2025

NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_2192/2025

This UPC decision addressed the procedural consequences of withdrawing counterclaims for both patent revocation and a FRAND license offer. The Court permitted the withdrawals, declaring the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling clarified that even though a FRAND license offer counterclaim is related to the main infringement action, it constitutes an independent proceeding requiring court fees, thereby preventing a full refund upon withdrawal.

patent dismissed · Jan 17, 2025

NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Commuincation Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_2273/2025

In this UPC case, NEC Corporation initiated a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning EP 3 057 321. Before the written procedure concluded, the Claimant voluntarily withdrew the suit due to a contractual agreement reached with the Defendants. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed. Crucially, the court ruled that the claimant was entitled to a significant reimbursement of court fees (60%), setting a clear precedent for cost recovery in voluntary withdrawals.

patent dismissed · Jan 17, 2025

NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Commuincation Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_2272/2025

In this UPC decision, NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its patent infringement action against several TCL entities before a final judgment was rendered. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling confirmed that even upon voluntary withdrawal, specific rules apply regarding court fee reimbursement, granting NEC 60% of the fees paid.

patent dismissed · Jan 15, 2025

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_68356/2024

In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed both Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom (and affiliates) to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims regarding EP 4 087 195. The withdrawal was permitted because neither party demonstrated a legitimate interest in forcing the continuation of the litigation. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to terminate complex patent disputes by mutual consent, provided no vested interests are at stake.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →