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 and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This order was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. All parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings in respect of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The presiding judge granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure, with the stay not to be lifted before 30 September 2025, and cancelled the scheduled interim conference and oral hearing dates.
Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich on July 24, 2025, concerning European Patent No. 2 515 768. The claimants (Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC) requested permission to bring two private interpreters at their own expense to the oral hearing scheduled for August 6, 2025. The presiding judge granted permission for the interpreters to participate from the Overflow Room 220b rather than the courtroom, but otherwise rejected the application.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. requested an extension of the deadline to respond to the defendants' submission of June 13, 2025, until July 9, 2025, citing technical unavailability of the UPC CMS filing system from July 3 to July 8, 2025. The court rejected the request, holding that the temporary CMS shutdown is already addressed by the automatic extension of deadlines under Rule 301.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA, IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance scheduling proceedings in an infringement action concerning European patent no. 3 812 870. The panel decided not to bifurcate the proceedings and will hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, setting an interim videoconference for 24 March 2026 and an in-person oral hearing in Munich for 18 June 2026.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3669828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation notified the court of its intention to enforce specific parts of a decision dated 4 April 2025 pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP. The defendants (Meril entities) agreed not to request a translation and confirmed compliance with the relevant orders, and the court ordered the issuance of an authentic paper copy of the decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the continuation of written proceedings in an infringement action regarding EP 4 108 782. The claimants had initially filed 55 auxiliary requests, which were later reduced to 4, and the court ordered the immediate continuation of the written procedure to preserve the agreed oral hearing date of 17/18 September 2025. The court set deadlines for the parties' further written submissions and requested confirmation regarding an interim conference.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Erik Krahbichler, Third Party)
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses the withdrawal of various applications filed in the course of infringement proceedings. After third party Erik Krahbichler withdrew his application for access to the file, defendants Meril filed applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. Following guidance from the judge-rapporteur referencing a similar order from the Central Division Paris Seat, Meril withdrew these applications, and the court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (UPC_CFI_501/2023 and UPC_CFI_676/2024)
Procedural order concerning European Patent No. 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. Following a third party's (Erik Krahbichler) withdrawal of his application for access to the file, the defendant Meril Life Sciences withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. The Presiding Judge permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the rectification of a scheduling order in an infringement action. The court corrected a typo in the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025, specifying the details of the oral hearing venue and time.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court scheduled the proceedings, deciding to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, and set dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure deadlines.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and Others
This case concerns a patent infringement action filed by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited regarding European Patent No. 2 793 430. The Local Division Munich issued a procedural scheduling order on 18 March 2025, setting dates for the interim conference, written procedure, and oral hearing, and subsequently issued a rectification order on 19 March 2025 to correct typographical errors in the original scheduling order.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. – Request for Inspection of Files (UPC_CFI_156/2024) v.Ex Parte
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of files under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in evidence preservation proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The court granted Chainzone's request for file inspection, finding no reasons to deny access, and allowed SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. ten days to identify any personal data to be redacted under data protection regulations.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. & Others
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 793 430. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence with Counterclaim for Revocation to 11 March 2025, citing an agreement between the parties and the substantial workload of their legal counsels. The Presiding Judge granted the request, noting that the extension was only a maximum of one week and that the deadline for defendant 3 would be shortened.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947. The order addresses multiple applications including Samsung's filing on Headwater's standing to sue, Samsung's confidentiality application, and Headwater's applications for leave to amend its pleadings. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, dismissed Samsung's confidentiality application as superfluous, and set deadlines for further submissions and the Interim Conference.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 897 305, a patent protecting a drinking device for retronasal perception of aroma substances. The defendant, a Chinese company, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering the defendant to cease infringing activities across UPC Member States, pay penalties of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and bear the costs of proceedings.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringing EP 3 655 341, owned by air up group GmbH, which protects a drinking device for retronasal reception of an aroma substance. The defendant, a Chinese company selling a competing drinking bottle with aroma pods, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court ordered the defendant to cease and desist from the infringing activities across UPC Member States, imposed a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich on January 7, 2025, in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both parties jointly requested a stay of the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim proceedings, with the plaintiff submitting the defendants' written consent to the stay dated January 3, 2025. The court granted the stay and cancelled the scheduled interim hearing (May 8, 2025) and main hearing (June 3, 2025).
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent No. 3 678 321. The technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon resigned pursuant to Art. 9(2) of the Statutes, necessitating the assignment of a replacement judge to ensure continuity of the panel.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. The order revokes a prior direction appointing a translation expert after the parties agreed that the defendants' submitted translation could be used and that the relevant Chinese-language priority and application documents were identical with respect to the passages relevant to the dispute.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
Motorola Mobility LLC filed a patent infringement action against Ericsson entities before the Local Division Munich regarding European Patent EP 3 342 086. Motorola subsequently applied for leave to amend its claims to add requests for injunctive relief, recall, permanent removal, and destruction of infringing embodiments. The Court rejected the application, finding that Motorola could have made the amendment earlier with reasonable diligence, as it had already sought similar injunctive relief in parallel UK proceedings in December 2023.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.
Amgen Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Sanofi and Regeneron entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 3 666 797 and their drug Praluent (Alirocumab). After the Central Division revoked the patent in its entirety on 16 July 2024, both parties agreed to stay the infringement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation decision.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) to extend the deadline for filing their Duplik (reply) in a patent infringement case involving EP 3 024 163. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's Replik (rejoinder) was filed with numerous redactions serving as placeholders for later submissions, preventing them from preparing a complete response. The court held that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' is impermissible, but as an exception, ruled that the Duplik deadline had not yet begun to run.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH regarding EP 3 024 163. The court issued a consolidated confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, protecting information related to prior and ongoing license negotiations and internal business considerations. The court modified the preliminary order, limiting access to confidential information to specified persons and their legal representatives, and set a coercive penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per culpable violation.
Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent 1 838 002, in which the defendants (Tesla entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A for group-internal information contained in a late-filed written submission. The court granted the request, finding that while overall Tesla production figures and sales prices are publicly known, the specific numbers and average sales prices underlying the defendants' application were not publicly accessible. The plaintiff was restricted to disclosing the protected information only to specifically named employees, with potential penalties of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A) filed by the defendants (Tesla entities) in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent 1 838 002. The defendants sought protection for confidential business information contained in a late-filed submission, including vehicle numbers, sales prices, and financial calculations. The court granted the confidentiality protection, finding the information was credibly not publicly available, while allowing the plaintiff access through a limited number of named representatives.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns proceedings for preliminary measures related to European Patent EP 2 152 073 before the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance. The defendants (Sumi Agro companies) applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for confidentiality protection of two confidential exhibits (SA-1 and SA-9). The claimant (Syngenta Limited) did not formally object, and the court granted the confidentiality protection as requested, restricting access to specifically named employees.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings for preliminary measures related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. The defendants requested postponement of the oral hearing scheduled for 11 July 2024 due to a scheduling conflict of their representative. The court granted the request and rescheduled the hearing to 12 July 2024 at 8:00 a.m.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
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.