in Ulrike Vo
27 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
27 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1, brought by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek. The court granted Defendant 2's (MediaTek Germany GmbH) application for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP, ordering Huawei to provide security of €150,000 within six weeks, finding that Huawei's declaration regarding service on its German subsidiary did not adequately address enforcement concerns in China.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1, relating to MediaTek's 5G-capable Dimensity series chips. The order addresses Huawei's request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for confidentiality protection of its submission dated 15.08.2025, made in response to MediaTek Germany GmbH's request for production of license agreements under Rule 190. The court granted partial confidentiality protection, classifying certain information as confidential and strictly confidential, and restricted access to specified named persons on the defendant's side.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH and MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek regarding 5G-capable Dimensity series chips. The order addresses Huawei's application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect the confidentiality of information contained in its submissions regarding license agreements and licensing negotiations. The court classified certain information as confidential and strictly confidential, restricted access to a limited number of named persons on the defendant side, and declined to decide on certain further requests at that stage.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 4 142 215. MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for trade secrets contained in its Statement of Defense (Non-Technical Part), relying on an out-of-court confidentiality agreement concluded between the parties on 11.07.2025. The court granted the application in part, ordering that certain information be treated as confidential, restricting public access, and limiting access on Huawei's side to specifically named attorneys and a limited number of natural persons, with potential fines of up to €250,000 for violations.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 4 142 215. MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for trade secrets contained in its Statement of Defense. The court granted the application in part, ordering that certain information be treated as confidential and restricting access on Huawei's side to specifically named lawyers, their support staff, and a limited number of named natural persons.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd brought a patent infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215 before the Local Chamber Munich. MediaTek Germany filed an application under Rule 190 RoP for the submission of license agreements and a related application under Rule 262A RoP seeking confidentiality protection, relying on an out-of-court confidentiality agreement concluded between the MediaTek group and Huawei on 11 July 2025. The court granted the confidentiality application in part, classifying certain information as confidential, imposing confidentiality obligations on all participants, and restricting access on Huawei's side to specified lawyers and seventeen named natural persons.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Unified Patent Court decision.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This case concerned an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 602 692, accompanied by a revocation counterclaim. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement claim and the defendants withdrew the revocation counterclaim. The court allowed both withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and addressed the refund of court fees, setting the value of the infringement claim at €750,000 and the revocation counterclaim at €1,125,000.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku, Inc.
Sun Patent Trust sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) and Anti-Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AAEI) against Roku, Inc. before the Local Chamber Munich after Roku filed a US lawsuit seeking Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Injunctions. The court initially granted the interim measures ex parte, but upon Roku's request for review, found the application moot after Roku amended its US complaint and provided cease-and-desist declarations. The court ordered Roku to bear the costs, holding that a prior warning was unnecessary given Roku had already initiated court proceedings for an ASI/AEI.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This case concerns a review application by Roku, Inc. regarding an ex parte order granting Dolby International AB an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) and Anti-Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AAEI) before the Local Chamber Munich. The court declared the application for interim measures moot and the proceedings terminated, but held that Roku bore the costs because a prior cease-and-desist letter was unnecessary given Roku had already initiated US proceedings seeking Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Injunctions against Dolby.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215 before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court. Huawei sought an order to protect confidential information and trade secrets contained in its complaint. The court granted the request in part, classifying the grey-highlighted information and marked attachments as confidential and ordering all participants in the proceedings to treat them as such, while declining to impose access restrictions on the defendants themselves.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd requested that certain information in its complaint be classified as confidential and that all participants in the proceedings be obligated to maintain confidentiality, including after the proceedings conclude. The court granted the request, classifying the identified information as confidential and ordering that it be kept confidential by all persons involved in the proceedings.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This is a cost-setting decision (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in full, the claimant MSG Maschinenbau GmbH withdrew its infringement action, and the court ordered MSG to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. The defendant EJP Maschinen GmbH sought reimbursement of €20,797.00 for infringement costs and €18,697.50 for revocation costs, and the court granted a total of €33,224.50, partially reducing the claimed amounts.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This is a cost determination decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in its entirety, the plaintiff (MSG) withdrew its infringement action and was ordered to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. The defendant (EJP) sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court set the recoverable costs at €33,224.50, rejecting the plaintiff's objections to certain attorney fees and the claim for interest on the costs.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendants' objection (Einspruch) under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 903 267. The defendants had argued that the UPC lacks jurisdiction because the UPC Agreement is incompatible with EU primary law (TEU and TFEU), relying on CJEU Opinion 1/09. The court held that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a valid ground for objection under Rule 19(1), and that for establishing jurisdiction, a prima facie allegation of infringement suffices without proof of actual or imminent infringement.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
This is a decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Munich, concerning the confirmation of a settlement agreement and a confidentiality order. BSN Medical GmbH had sued the defendants for infringement of European patents EP 3 033 058 and EP 3 831 350, but the parties subsequently settled the dispute. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered that the details of the settlement be treated confidentially, and ruled that each party bears its own costs as agreed in the settlement.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a procedural objection (R. 19.1(a) and R. 20.1 RoP) raised by the defendants against an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 602 692. The defendants argued that the court lacked temporal jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts occurring before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The presiding judge rejected the objection, holding that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA's entry into force and/or between an opt-out and its withdrawal.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a cost reimbursement application following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 1 770 912. The applicant, Avago Technologies, withdrew its interim measures application after the court had already issued an ex parte order, and sought reimbursement of 20% of court fees. The court held that Rule 370.9(b) RoP applies analogously to the withdrawal of an application for interim measures and ordered reimbursement of €2,200.00.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
Avago Technologies filed an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 against Realtek Semiconductor before the Local Chamber Munich. After the court issued an ex parte order on 9 December 2024 that was never served on Realtek, Avago withdrew its application on 3 January 2025. The court allowed the withdrawal without hearing the respondent, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Avago to bear the costs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed an infringement action against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the defendants filed a counterclaim for invalidity, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This case concerned a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1 filed by Tesla against Avago Technologies' infringement action. Tesla withdrew its counterclaim for revocation, and Avago consented to the withdrawal without requesting a cost decision. The Local Chamber Munich allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG (Application for Access to Court Files) v.Ex Parte
HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG, an opponent in pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office concerning European Patent EP 3 602 692, applied for access to the briefs and evidence filed in infringement proceedings between PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The court granted the application, holding that an opponent in pending opposition proceedings has a legal interest in accessing court files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP during ongoing proceedings.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court granted Avago's application for an anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunction against Realtek. Realtek had filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking to permanently enjoin Avago from pursuing patent infringement claims in Germany against certain automotive companies using Realtek's products. The court held that such foreign anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions violate the European right to access to justice under Art. 47 of the EU Charter and the German constitutional right to access to courts, and qualify as tortious acts under § 823(1) BGB.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd (EP 3 197 316)
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court ruled on the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 3 197 316. The applicant, Koninklijke Philips N.V., withdrew its application for interim measures one day after filing, and subsequently sought reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid. The court held that Rule 370(9)(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure applies by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for interim measures and ordered reimbursement of €6,600.00.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, which relates to a device and method for measuring the straightness of rod-shaped workpieces. Following the complete revocation of the patent by the EPO Board of Appeal on July 4, 2024, the claimant withdrew the infringement action and the defendant sought a declaration that the counterclaim had become moot. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared both proceedings terminated, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and granted each party a 60% reimbursement of court fees (€6,600.00 each).
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.