Matthias Zigann
34 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
34 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
Huawei sued NETGEAR entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei asserted is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought a production order against itself to introduce a Wi-Fi patent portfolio license agreement with Amazon (dated 5 March 2024) into the proceedings, together with confidentiality protection for its contents. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the provisional production and confidentiality orders and additionally allowed the use of the license agreement and its confidential information in a related parallel proceeding concerning EP 3 678 321.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Huawei sued Netgear entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which is essential for the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Netgear raised an exhaustion defense based on a Qualcomm chip in some accused embodiments and sought production of Huawei's August 2020 license agreement with Qualcomm. The Local Chamber Munich ordered Huawei to produce the agreement with confidentiality protections and a daily coercive fine of up to €20,000, while rejecting the remaining requests of both parties.
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.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315, held by Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. Following an oral hearing on 30 January 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to have the settlement confirmed. The court confirmed the settlement, issued a cost decision based on the parties' agreement, and ordered that the details of the settlement and cost arrangement be treated as confidential.
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.