Pichlmaier
52 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
52 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In this UPC decision, Avago Technologies sued Tesla regarding the infringement of EP 1 838 002, a patent covering programmable hybrid transmitters. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Tesla, declaring the patent invalid for Germany because its claims were anticipated by prior art (D3). This ruling not only dismissed the infringement claim but also established a significant precedent regarding the enforceability of patents facing strong prior art challenges within the UPC framework.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
In this UPC case, Motorola Mobility LLC sought leave to amend its infringement claim against Ericsson, specifically to include requests for injunctive relief and recall of infringing products. The court ultimately rejected this application, ruling that the Claimant had not acted with sufficient diligence. The decision emphasizes strict procedural adherence in SEP litigation within the UPC, particularly regarding when remedies like injunctions can be introduced.
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.
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.
Dyson Technology Ltd. v.SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Ltd. sought interim injunctions against SharkNinja for alleged infringement of EP 2 043 492, a patent covering hand-held vacuum cleaners. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the claims of both parties, meaning no provisional injunction was granted. Beyond the specific outcome, the decision provided important procedural guidance on timing and scope when applying for interim measures in UPC proceedings. This ruling reinforces the need for careful case preparation while acknowledging the practical constraints of summary relief.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by Volkswagen/Audi and Texas Instruments against Network System Technologies' infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The Court largely rejected jurisdictional challenges, allowing the case to proceed. However, it significantly narrowed the scope of alleged infringement, focusing primarily on the TI DRA79x SoC, while deferring complex issues like UK damages to the main proceedings. This ruling signals a careful application of procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
This UPC decision addresses preliminary objections raised by both parties regarding an infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The Court partially dismissed the motions seeking dismissal of the case as manifestly unfounded, allowing the core infringement claims to proceed. However, it significantly narrowed the scope of alleged infringing products, focusing only on specific models like the TI DRA79x SoC. Furthermore, complex issues regarding jurisdiction and damages were deferred to the main proceedings due to ongoing validity challenges.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary ruling, Volkswagen AG and its co-claimants challenged Network System Technologies LLC's infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The Court of First Instance partially rejected the defendants' preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and the admissibility of claims. While the court allowed the case to proceed, it narrowed the scope of alleged infringement significantly, focusing primarily on a specific TI DRA79x SoC model. This decision sets the stage for the main proceedings while addressing critical procedural hurdles.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed multiple objections raised by both claimants (VW/Audi) and respondents (NST). The court largely rejected procedural challenges regarding jurisdiction and admissibility. Crucially, while allowing the infringement action to proceed, the court significantly narrowed the scope of alleged infringement, limiting it only to specific detailed embodiments like the TI DRA79x SoC. This decision sets a clear precedent for how broad claims must be substantiated in UPC proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling concerning the infringement of EP3611989, Huawei sought court orders to introduce and protect a confidential license agreement with Amazon. The Local Chamber confirmed these provisional measures, granting strict secrecy protection for the document. Crucially, the court also allowed the use of this sensitive licensing information in related split proceedings, balancing commercial needs with IP confidentiality.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the disclosure of a confidential Qualcomm licensing agreement relevant to an ongoing Wi-Fi infringement case. Despite the court dismissing both sides' requests for mandatory disclosure, it issued comprehensive protective orders. These rulings emphasize the importance of balancing litigation needs with the protection of trade secrets in high-tech patent disputes.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this procedural matter, the Court of First Instance examined requests by both parties for security for legal costs under Article 69.4 UPCA. The respondent (NST), a US-based company, argued that enforcement difficulties and its limited financial standing warranted the security. However, the court rejected these arguments, finding that general claims about US enforcement risks were unsubstantiated and that the claimant possessed sufficient assets to cover potential costs.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In a decision concerning security for legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Munich rejected the request made by Network System Technologies LLC against Volkswagen AG and Audi AG. The court held that general allegations regarding enforcement difficulties in the US were insufficient to justify requiring the claimant (NST) to provide security. This ruling reinforces the principle of access to justice within the UPC framework, particularly for SMEs.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this procedural matter, the Court of First Instance rejected requests from both Volkswagen/Audi and Texas Instruments for security for legal costs against Network System Technologies LLC. The court emphasized that general concerns about enforcing UPC judgments in the US are insufficient grounds to impose a cautio on claimants. This decision reinforces the principle that access to justice must be balanced against the need to protect IP rights, particularly for SMEs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In this UPC case, Avago Technologies sued Tesla entities for infringement of EP1838002. Concurrently, the defendants filed counterclaims seeking revocation of the patent. The court issued an order consolidating all claims—the main action and both counterclaims—to be heard together before the Munich Local Division. This procedural step streamlines the litigation process by addressing infringement and validity simultaneously.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached between Steindl Krantechnik and BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik regarding EP3287315. The court formally validated the terms of the agreement, which was initially filed as an application for provisional measures. Crucially, both parties successfully requested that the details of this confidential settlement be kept private by the UPC.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case between Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz addresses multiple complex applications concerning claim expansion, particularly regarding patent infringement claims in Romania. The Court proposed a unified approach to manage these expansions efficiently, aiming to prevent divergent decisions across different jurisdictions (Germany, France, Italy). By agreeing to this framework, both parties can proceed with their respective claims while adhering to the UPC's principles of procedural economy.
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.