in Ulrike Vo
21 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
21 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH sought an order requiring the plaintiff Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to provide security for costs under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP, arguing that as a Chinese-domiciled entity, enforcement of a cost order in China would be uncertain. Huawei countered by providing a legally binding assurance that any cost decision could be served on its German subsidiary, Huawei Technologies Deutschland GmbH.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. The dispute centers on MediaTek's request under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements, and Huawei's corresponding request under Rule 262A to classify certain information as confidential or strictly confidential. The order addresses the protection of confidential information in connection with Huawei's submission responding to the production request, referencing a confidentiality agreement between the parties.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215. Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for certain information, relying on a non-disclosure agreement concluded between the MediaTek group and Huawei on 11 July 2025. Huawei confirmed the NDA and raised no objections to the requested access restrictions. The Local Chamber Munich granted the application in the scope set out in the order, ordering confidentiality measures, exclusion of the public from hearings and judgment pronouncement regarding confidential information, redaction before publication, and exclusion of confidential information from third-party file access.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 05.06.2025 KLÄGERIN PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG, Flachsmarktstraße 8-28, 32825 Blomberg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Rechtsanwalt Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte, Ismaninger Stra
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 05.06.2025 KLÄGERIN PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG, Flachsmarktstraße 8-28, 32825 Blomberg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Rechtsanwalt Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte, Ismaninger Stra
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This case concerns an application by Sun Patent Trust for review of an order concerning interim measures against Roku, Inc. in proceedings involving European Patents EP 2 903 267 and EP 3 200 463. The dispute arose after Roku filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking, among other things, an anti-suit injunction against Sun Patent Trust. The court addressed key questions regarding cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, the necessity of prior cease-and-desist letters before seeking interim measures, and the circumstances under which such warnings are dispensable.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This order concerns an application by Dolby International AB for review of a provisional measures order against Roku, Inc. in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The dispute arose after Roku filed a counterclaim for invalidity in the existing infringement proceedings and subsequently initiated a US lawsuit seeking, among other things, an injunction to prevent Dolby from pursuing the UPC action. The court addressed the question of cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, holding that a prior warning (Abmahnung) is not a prerequisite for provisional measures but that its absence may affect cost allocation, particularly when the respondent immediately offers a cease-and-desist declaration.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei requested that certain information highlighted in grey in the statement of claim, along with related annexes marked as confidential, be classified as confidential under Article 58 of the EPG Agreement in conjunction with Rules 262.2 and 262A.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich granted the request, ordering that the confidential information be protected from access by the opposing party and the public, and that the defendants not disclose such information to third parties or use it outside the proceedings.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This cost-setting proceeding arose from a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, in which the plaintiff MSG Maschinenbau GmbH sued defendant EJP Maschinen GmbH. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in its entirety, MSG withdrew the main infringement claim, and the court ordered MSG to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. EJP filed an application seeking reimbursement of €20,797.00 in costs for the infringement proceedings, and the court assessed the reasonableness and proportionality of the claimed cost items under Article 69 of the UPC Agreement and Rules 150–152 of the Rules of Procedure.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) by the Local Chamber Munich concerning the reimbursement of costs arising from prior infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal fully revoked the patent, the plaintiff (MSG Maschinenbau GmbH) withdrew its infringement action, and the court ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of both the infringement proceedings and the revocation counterclaim proceedings, each with a value in dispute of €500,000. The defendant (EJP Maschinen GmbH) filed an application seeking reimbursement of its costs, including €20,797.00 for the infringement proceedings.
Roku International B.V., Roku Inc. v.Sun Patent Trust
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an objection (Einspruch) filed by the defendants under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure against a patent infringement action based on European Patent EP 2 903 267. The court addressed four key preliminary issues: whether alleged incompatibility of the UPC Agreement with EU primary law constitutes a ground for objection, whether violations of the EU Charter or ECHR can support such an objection, whether the plaintiff must proactively prove its representative's authority regarding the opt-out withdrawal, and the standard for establishing jurisdiction. The court ruled against the defendants on all four points, finding that the objection should be rejected.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts, erlassen am 10.02.2025 KLÄGERIN BSN Medical GmbH, Schützenstraße 1-3, 22761 Hamburg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Christian Stoll Hogan Lovells International LLP, Alstertor 2, 20095 Hamburg, Deutschla
Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A., ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Division Munich addressed an objection by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that occurred before the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) entered into force and during the period of an opt-out. The court held that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA, Art. 2(g), and Art. 3(c) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on such pre-UPCA and opt-out period acts of use. The court further clarified that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate legal concepts that must be assessed independently of one another.
UPC Decision UPC-000979 v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a cost reimbursement application filed by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited following the withdrawal of its request for interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912. The applicant initially sought 60% reimbursement of court fees but, following a court indication, amended its request to seek 20% reimbursement pursuant to Rule 370.11 in conjunction with Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure, applied analogously. The Local Division Munich found that Rule 370.9(b) RoP, which literally governs fee reimbursement upon withdrawal of a 'claim' under Rule 265, applies analogously to the withdrawal of a request for interim measures due to a regulatory gap and comparable interest situation.
UPC Decision UPC-001036 v.Respondent
The applicant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, sought interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 before the Local Division Munich. After the court issued an ex parte order on December 9, 2024, which had not yet been served on the respondent, the applicant withdrew its application for interim measures on January 3, 2025. The court allowed the withdrawal without hearing the respondent, holding that the prior ex parte order did not constitute a final decision ending the instance because the review period under Rule 212.3 RoP had not yet begun.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. v.Respondent
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. The defendants had filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Before any decision on the merits, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG for access to the case files of an ongoing patent infringement action between PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG (plaintiff) and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH (defendants) concerning European Patent EP 3 602 692. HARTING, which had filed an opposition against the patent in suit before the European Patent Office (joined by defendant ILME GmbH), sought access to the briefs and evidence filed in the main infringement proceedings to properly defend its interests in both the opposition proceedings and related utility model infringement actions. The Local Chamber Munich held that an opponent in a pending opposition proceeding concerning the patent in suit has a legal interest in accessing the case files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP during the ongoing proceedings.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
Avago Technologies, proprietor of European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1 (relating to the 1000Base-T1 Automotive Ethernet Standard, in force only in Germany), sought provisional measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation. The dispute arose after Realtek filed a lawsuit against Avago in the Court of Chancery of Delaware (USA), which was referred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking what Avago characterized as foreign anti-suit and/or anti-enforcement relief. The Local Division Munich ruled on the court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief against such foreign measures, holding that foreign anti-suit and enforcement injunctions violate the European right to effective judicial protection (Art. 47 EU Charter) and the German constitutional guarantee of access to courts.
UPC Decision UPC-001163 v.Respondent
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed an application for interim measures against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd concerning European Patent EP 3 197 316, but withdrew the application the following day. After the court confirmed the effectiveness of the withdrawal, Philips sought a 60% refund of the court fees paid. The Local Division Munich held that Rule 370(9)(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure applies analogously to the withdrawal of an application for interim measures before completion of the written procedure, and ordered a refund of €6,600.00.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This case 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 plaintiff withdrew the infringement action under Rule 265 RoP and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The defendant sought a declaration that the revocation counterclaim had become moot under Rule 360 RoP and also requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
This is a default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) issued by the Local Chamber Munich in a patent infringement action under Article 37 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff, i-mop GmbH, is the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 760 094 B1, which protects a hand-guided floor processing device with a specific joint configuration allowing the floor part to be rotated at least ±45° around a vertical axis. The defendant, ARCORA International GmbH, is a German-domiciled company against whom the infringement claim was directed. The judgment was rendered by a panel consisting of Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß (Rapporteur), legally qualified Judge Dr. Daniel Voß, and legally qualified Judge Mojca Mlakar.
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.