Klaus Loibner
10 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
10 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns the consequences of the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (STRABAG) on the appeal lodged by its intervener (Chainzone) in a patent infringement case. The court held that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws its appeal following an out-of-court settlement, rendering the intervener's appeal moot. Chainzone's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to bear its own costs.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.
This case concerns the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (Strabag) following an out-of-court settlement with the opposing party (Swarco) in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 2 643 717, and the consequences for the appeal independently filed by the intervener (Chainzone). The Court of Appeal admitted the withdrawal of Strabag's appeal and declared Chainzone's separate appeal moot under R. 360 of the Rules of Procedure, holding that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws from the proceedings.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTeK group companies for infringement of European Patent EP 3 972 309 B1, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent null and void for lack of disclosure of origin (the subject matter extending beyond the content of the earlier parent application), dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTek group companies for infringement of European patent EP 3 972 309, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich found that claims 1 and 11 of the patent lacked sufficient disclosure in the earlier parent application, declared those claims invalid, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (Confidentiality Order)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 1, 2025, concerning requests for confidentiality and access/use restrictions in an appeal arising from a patent infringement action. The court partially granted the confidentiality requests of STRABAG and its intervener Chainzone, classifying certain information and annexes as confidential trade secrets under Art. 58 EPCA, while rejecting certain requests as inadmissible because they were first raised in the appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted in first instance.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH)
This order concerns an application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., as intervener supporting defendant STRABAG, for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Vienna. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, finding that Chainzone failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision was manifestly incorrect or that fundamental procedural rights were violated. The substantive issues regarding patent claim interpretation and infringement will be addressed in the appeal proceedings.
AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appeal filed by AYLO entities against an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim rejecting their objections to jurisdiction. The court held that the UPC has international jurisdiction for an infringement action when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and the alleged damage may occur in that state, including via internet-based services accessible in that territory. The court also confirmed that the list of objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure is exhaustive and does not extend to arguments such as abusive conduct or manifest lack of merit.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent No. 1 838 002 B1 relating to a programmable hybrid transmitter. The defendants filed nullity counterclaims. The Local Chamber Munich held that the independent claims 1 and 7 were anticipated by prior art document D3, declared the patent null and void for Germany, rejected the requests for amendment, and dismissed the infringement claim, ordering Avago to bear the costs.
VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, and Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 883 277, which relates to electronic labels for displaying information in retail spaces. The appellant (VusionGroup SA, formerly SES-imagotag SA) sought interim measures against various Hanshow entities, alleging infringement of the patent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused products (various Nebular and Stellar Pro models) fell within the scope of claim 1 of the patent, particularly because it did not demonstrate that the antenna was positioned further toward the front face of the electronic label than the printed circuit board.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 838 002. The claimant (Avago) sued the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) for patent infringement, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court ordered that the main infringement action and both revocation counterclaims be heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, rejecting the option of referral to the Central Division since the claimant did not consent.
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.