Tobias Pichlmaier
36 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
36 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. alleged that AorticLab srl's 'FLOWer' embolic protection device infringed European Patent EP 2 129 425, which relates to an embolic protection device with a cylindrical outer structure and conical inner structure for capturing emboli. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the attacked embodiment did not include a pull loop or other graspable structure engageable by a hook as required by claim 1 of the patent. The defendant's conditional counterclaim for invalidity was not decided because it was dependent on a finding of infringement, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the counterclaim.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co. et al.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., the registered proprietor of European patent EP 2 787 541 (relating to solar cells), sued Chint New Energy Technology Co. and its Astronergy affiliates for allegedly infringing the patent through their 'ASTRO N' series n-type TOPCon solar modules sold in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation and raised defenses including lack of standing, incomplete infringement allegations, validity challenges, and antitrust violations. The Local Division Munich found infringement, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation in its entirety, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, recall and destruction orders, damages, and an interim award of costs against the defendants.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought provisional measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1 (relating to a neuromodulation system) by Niche Biomedical's 'ExaStim' stimulation system in Germany and France. The court rejected the application for interim measures, along with the auxiliary requests based on alternative claim formulations, holding that such auxiliary requests signal doubts about the validity of the patent as granted and are generally inadmissible in Art. 62 EPGÜ proceedings. The respondent's application for preliminary cost reimbursement of €168,000 was also rejected for lack of substantiation.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
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.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1, which relates to metal sintering preparations for connecting electronic components. The court maintained the patent in amended form, partially allowing the revocation counterclaim, but dismissed the infringement action. Costs were split 40% to the defendant and 60% to the plaintiff.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
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.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1 relating to metal sintering preparations for connecting components in electronics. The plaintiff (Heraeus Electronics) brought an infringement action against the defendant (Vibrantz GmbH), while the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court partially revoked the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and addressed the binding effect of a prior final judgment from the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) that had maintained the German part of the patent in amended form.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (UPC_CFI_63/2025)
This case concerns an application by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH to revoke an evidence preservation and inspection order under Rule 198.1 EPGVerfO. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, holding that Nanoval GmbH had timely initiated main proceedings based on the revised deadline start date set by the rapporteur's order of March 18, 2025, which adjusted the deadline start to the date the expert's report was made accessible to Nanoval.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court found that SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH infringed EP 2 839 083 B9, owned by Tiroler Rohre GmbH, by manufacturing and selling pile tips (GS115, GS140, GS170). The court rejected the defendants' arguments that their products lacked a free-standing web, a flat support surface, or actual contact between the pile end and support surface, holding that the support surface only needs to be suitable for supporting the pile end. The court also upheld the validity of the patent in amended form and granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, information obligations, publication rights, and damages.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. applied for an order requiring AorticLab srl to provide security for costs in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 129 425 before the Local Division Munich. The court held that a party filing a counterclaim for revocation qualifies as an 'Applicant' under Art. 69(4) UPCA and can request security for costs, and found that AorticLab's own statements about potential insolvency created a legitimate concern regarding recoverability of costs. The court ordered AorticLab to provide security of €200,000.
Chint Solar Netherlands B.V. and Others v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
The defendants in patent infringement proceedings (Chint and Astronergy entities) applied for an order requiring the claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. (a Chinese company), to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division Munich granted the application, ordering the claimant to provide security of €200,000 by 30 April 2025, reasoning that China's failure to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention justified an assumption that any UPC cost reimbursement order would not be enforceable in China or only in an unduly burdensome way.
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.
Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Rectification of Decision)
This is a rectification order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent related to heart valve prostheses. Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (the defendants in the underlying infringement action) applied under Rule 353 RoP to rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, and obvious slips in the court's decision of 15 November 2024. The court granted several rectifications relating to factual inaccuracies on pages 13, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53, and 59 of the decision, while dismissing the remaining requests.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendants' objection (Einspruch) challenging the admissibility of an infringement action concerning EP 3 685 783. The court held that the Munich chamber had jurisdiction because, at the time the infringement action was filed on November 20, 2024, the prior interim measures application between the same parties regarding the same patent was already pending before the Court of Appeal, not before another chamber of the Court of First Instance. The court further established that the action was deemed served on December 2, 2024.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an infringement action by Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. against three ASUSTek entities regarding European Patent No. 3 682 587. The defendants requested that the court decide on the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, and the court granted this request, also requesting the assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
SnowPixie Co., Ltd. (UPC_CFI_244/2024, UPC_CFI_786/2024) v.Ex Parte
In proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, the defendant in an infringement action sought security for costs of €257,000 against the plaintiff under Rule 158 EPGVerfO, citing the plaintiff's poor credit rating and operating losses. The plaintiff opposed the request and applied for legal aid. The court ordered reduced security of €62,600 and rejected the application for legal aid, finding that the plaintiff was capable of bearing its own costs and providing the ordered security.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
This order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by Snowpixie Co., Ltd. (defendant in infringement proceedings) for Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH (plaintiff in infringement proceedings) to provide security for costs under Rule 158 EPGVerfO. The court found Golf Tech's financial situation sufficiently precarious—given its operating loss and lack of adequate assets—to justify ordering security, but reduced the amount to €62,600 after applying equity considerations. The court also rejected Golf Tech's application for legal aid, finding it capable of bearing its own costs and the ordered security.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321. Both parties agreed that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation should be heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, and the panel concurred. The court ordered the consolidation of the proceedings and scheduled an interim hearing for January 16, 2025, and an oral hearing for March 25, 2025.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application concerning the service of a request for preliminary measures (interim injunction) to a Chinese-domiciled defendant in proceedings related to EP 3 655 341. After formal service under the Hague Service Convention failed due to the Chinese authority's non-processing for over six months, and alternative methods of service were neither factually nor legally possible, the court held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. Service was deemed effective as of the date of the order, with the defendant given fourteen days to file an objection.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by air up group GmbH for a preliminary injunction against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. regarding EP 3 897 305. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention despite multiple attempts over more than six months. The court declared the steps already taken as good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, deemed service effective as of the date of the order, and granted the defendant 14 days to file an objection.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. regarding EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention as the competent Chinese authority received the documents but failed to process them for more than six months. The Local Division Munich held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order and granting the defendant 14 days to file an objection.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning confidentiality measures in infringement actions related to European Patent No. 3 215 288. The defendant Vibrantz sought to classify certain recipe/formulation information regarding sintering pastes as confidential and restrict access to a limited number of persons. The court granted secrecy protection but allowed access to the five named natural persons requested by the Heraeus plaintiffs, finding that the defendant had unnecessarily disclosed the exact recipe details in its submissions.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH & SSAB Europe Oy
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an application for provisional measures filed by Tiroler Rohre GmbH regarding EP 2 839 083 against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy. After the oral hearing where the court indicated concerns about granting the order, the applicant withdrew the application. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the applicant to bear all procedural costs including the costs of the protective letter filed by the defendants.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court denied Panasonic Holdings Corporation's request under Rule 305 RoP to add OTECH Germany GmbH as a third defendant to its patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 024 163. The court found the request to add the new party was filed late and that the circumstances did not justify allowing the late addition, given the advanced stage of the proceedings and the potential prejudice to the existing defendants. The court permitted appeal, as the relevant questions had not yet been clarified by the Court of Appeal.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
Motorola Mobility LLC filed a patent infringement action against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 3 780 758. 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, holding that Motorola failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) of the Rules of Procedure.
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.
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.