Judge Profile

Peter Agergaard

3 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

3 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent LITIGATION · Oct 10, 2025

Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000305

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.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 10, 2025

Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000302

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.

patent LITIGATION · Jan 15, 2025

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001030

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Dexcom entities concerning European patent EP 4 087 195 before the Local Division Munich. Following the filing of counterclaims for revocation by the defendants and an application to amend the patent by the claimant, all parties mutually withdrew their respective claims before the scheduled oral hearing. The Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs with no reimbursement between the parties.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →