Matthias Zigann
34 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
34 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited initiated infringement proceedings against Sumi Agro Limited and its European subsidiary concerning EP patent n° 2 152 073. In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a stay of all proceedings at the request of both parties. This decision effectively pauses the litigation, allowing time for strategic reassessment by the involved companies.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
This UPC decision is a procedural order concerning the logistics of an upcoming oral hearing in the Munich Local Division. Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC requested permission to use private interpreters due to facility limitations, which the Court partially granted. This ruling highlights the court's flexibility in accommodating parties' needs while maintaining procedural integrity.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
In this procedural ruling, Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. sought an extension of its deadline to respond to the defendants' submissions due to technical issues with the UPC CMS. The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected the request, finding that Lenovo failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest for the extension. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural rules within the UPC framework.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA
This procedural order in the Belparts v. IMI Hydronic case confirms the court's decision to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation simultaneously, despite potential conflicts between arguments presented in different proceedings. The UPC Local Division Munich set specific dates for future hearings, including an interim videoconference and a full oral hearing scheduled for June 2026. This order highlights the procedural flexibility of the UPC while managing complex litigation strategies involving multiple claims.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH; Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.; Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich relates to an ongoing infringement action involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril entities concerning European patent EP 3669828. The claimant sought an authentic paper copy of a prior decision for enforcement purposes, which was granted by the court. This ruling is significant as it streamlines the administrative process necessary to move from judgment to execution within the UPC framework.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed the continuation of a complex infringement case involving 10x Genomics and Bruker. After significant delays and disputes over the number of auxiliary requests filed by one claimant, the Court ruled that the proceedings should immediately continue. The decision highlighted the importance of balancing proportionality with the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, especially when procedural hurdles are resolved.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril Life Sciences addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most pending applications but issued a specific protective measure regarding sensitive legal billing details. This decision highlights the practical application of confidentiality rules (Rule 262A RoP) in complex litigation, particularly concerning attorney-client privilege and fee structures.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most procedural applications, effectively closing related workflows. Crucially, despite dismissing the main cost decision, the Judge issued a specific protective measure, ordering both Edwards Lifesciences and Erik Krahbichler not to disclose Meril's marked confidential data.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
In a procedural order issued on March 19, 2025, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed case UPC_CFI_665/2024 (Adeia Guides Inc. v. Disney). The court rectified a minor typo in the existing scheduling order. This administrative step confirms that the infringement action remains active and sets the date for the oral hearing on January 15, 2026. While no substantive legal rulings were made, this highlights the ongoing procedural management of complex UPC litigation.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
Adeia Guides Inc. initiated infringement proceedings against The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates concerning European Patent EP 2 793 430. This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich confirms that the case will proceed as a dual action, encompassing both the infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation. Key dates have been set, including an interim conference in December 2025 and the main oral hearing in January 2026, signaling the active progression of this high-stakes IP dispute.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney Company Limited
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich sets the stage for a major infringement and revocation action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries regarding European Patent EP 2 793 430. The court confirmed that both parties would proceed with the full scope of claims, including the counterclaim for revocation. Key dates were set for the interim conference (December 4, 2025) and the oral hearing (January 15, 2026), moving the case into its substantive phase.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
In a procedural ruling within the UPC Local Division, the court addressed Chainzone Technology's request for access to case files related to EP2643717. Despite initial delays and considerations regarding ongoing proceedings, the court ultimately granted the requested file access. This decision underscores the importance of transparency in UPC proceedings, even when preliminary measures like evidence preservation are involved.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request from Disney to extend deadlines for filing its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation in an infringement action. The court granted the extension based on the agreement reached between the parties, acknowledging the complexities arising from parallel litigation and counsel's travel schedules. This case highlights how procedural flexibility is utilized within the UPC framework to ensure fair process while managing complex international disputes.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics addresses several key motions, including claim amendments and confidentiality. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, a crucial step allowing the claimant to adapt its legal strategy based on the defendant's recent submissions. While other requests were dismissed, this decision keeps the infringement and revocation proceedings alive as they move toward an Interim Conference.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
In a significant decision by default, the UPC Local Division Munich granted an injunction in favor of air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. The case involved patent EP 3 655 341, which covers a specialized drinking device designed for retronasal aroma reception. Since the defendant failed to respond to the service of the application, the court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering an immediate cease-and-desist order across all UPC Member States.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
In a decision by default, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a preliminary injunction in favor of air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. The case concerned infringement of EP 3 897 305, which protects an innovative drinking device designed for retronasal aroma reception. Since the defendant failed to respond to the application, the court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering a cease and desist across all UPC Member States.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Limited initiated an infringement action against SharkNinja Europe and Germany concerning EP patent 2 043 492. In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Munich granted a suspension of both the main infringement proceedings and the associated counterclaim. This decision reflects a strategic pause agreed upon by both parties, allowing time for further negotiation or legal strategy before the merits of the case are addressed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
This UPC decision is a procedural order in an ongoing infringement and revocation case between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Netgear entities concerning EP patent No. 3 678 321. The court addressed the resignation of one of the technically qualified judges assigned to the panel. Consequently, the court mandated the reassignment of a new judge to maintain the integrity and continuity of the proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC infringement case between Huawei and Netgear, the court issued an order revoking a previous decision to appoint a translation expert. The revocation was based on the parties' mutual agreement that critical Chinese-language documents related to the patent were identical. This procedural step simplifies the ongoing litigation, allowing the case to proceed without the need for external linguistic verification.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
In this UPC case concerning a 5G SEP patent (EP3342086), Motorola Mobility LLC sought leave to amend its infringement claim to include requests for injunctive relief and product recall against Ericsson. The Court of First Instance rejected the application, ruling that the Claimant had not acted with sufficient diligence. The court noted that similar remedies could have been requested earlier, citing prior actions in the UK, thereby limiting the ability of SEP holders to unilaterally delay enforcement while claiming FRAND obligations.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Amgen Inc.'s infringement suit against Sanofi and Regeneron regarding EP3666797 (covering Praluent/Alirocumab) was stayed by the UPC Local Division Munich. This stay followed a prior Central Division decision that had revoked the patent in its entirety, which is now subject to appeal. The parties agreed to halt the infringement proceedings until the validity challenge reaches a final resolution.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
In a case concerning patent infringement related to extrusion technology, KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH successfully withdrew its lawsuit against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG after reaching an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Local Division accepted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings. Crucially, the court ruled that because the litigation was not yet fully concluded—due to pending issues like expert reports and parallel EPO appeal decisions—the claimant was entitled to a partial refund of their court fees.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the claimant (KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH) successfully withdrew its action against the respondent (TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG). The court accepted the withdrawal because both parties had reached an out-of-court settlement and the respondent consented to the claim's termination. Crucially, the court ruled that since the oral proceedings were not yet finalized—due to pending issues like expert reports or EPO appeal outcomes—the claimant was entitled to a partial refund of 20% of the court fees.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a procedural dispute regarding the submission of pleadings in an infringement case. The respondents sought extensions for their reply and rejoinder, citing redacted documents from the claimant's initial filing. However, the court rejected these requests, establishing a strict rule that placeholders via redactions are procedurally unacceptable. This ruling emphasizes the importance of full transparency and timely disclosure of all arguments to ensure a fair defense process in UPC litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A VerfO in an infringement case involving OPPO and Panasonic. The court confirmed that the information was indeed confidential but modified the scope of access and rejected the demand for document destruction post-trial. This ruling provides clarity on balancing the need for secrecy with the practical requirements of litigation, particularly regarding permissible access by legal representatives.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request for confidentiality rather than patent infringement itself. The Court of First Instance granted the defendants' motion to classify specific exhibits (SA-1 and SA-9) as strictly confidential under Rule 262A. This ruling is significant for practitioners, reinforcing the court's commitment to protecting sensitive commercial information during litigation proceedings.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a request for protective measures concerning confidential business information submitted by Tesla entities. The court found that specific operational and financial data provided by the defendants—such as average selling prices and vehicle allocation details—were genuinely sensitive and not publicly available. This decision reinforces the importance of Rule 262A EPG VerfO, providing a crucial mechanism for parties to safeguard proprietary information during complex patent litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a request for protective measures concerning confidential business information submitted by Tesla entities in relation to an ongoing patent dispute involving Avago Technologies. The court found that specific operational and financial data provided by Tesla—such as average selling prices and internal inventory numbers—were genuinely non-public and required protection under Rule 262A EPG VerfO. This decision is significant for practitioners, reinforcing the UPC's commitment to balancing transparency with the need to protect sensitive trade secrets during litigation.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC decision is procedural, concerning a preliminary measures application related to EP2152073. The defendants requested a postponement of the oral hearing due to scheduling conflicts for their counsel. After considering both parties' availability and the Court's proposed dates, the court granted the request, rescheduling the hearing.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion regarding the production of corporate documents in an infringement case involving Avago Technologies and Tesla. The respondents sought internal Board of Directors resolutions to challenge the claimant's legal standing (active legitimation) concerning patent ownership and assignment validity. The court partially granted this request, compelling the claimant to produce specific transfer authorization documents necessary for the respondent to properly defend their position under Rule 190.1.
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.