Tobias Pichlmaier
36 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
36 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
In this UPC case, Emboline, Inc. sued AorticLab srl for infringing a patent covering an embolic protection device. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the defendant's product did not meet all the requirements of the patented claims. Beyond the merits, the decision provided important procedural guidance on how dependent counterclaims are limited and how costs are allocated when certain intra-procedural conditions are not met.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and others (Astronergy group)
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich found that Chint New Energy Technology Co. and its affiliates infringed the patent EP 2 787 541 concerning advanced solar cell technology. The court granted an injunction requiring the defendants to cease sales of their 'ASTRO N' series modules in key EU markets (Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands). Furthermore, the claimant was awarded interim costs, and the defendant's counterclaim for patent revocation was dismissed.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought an injunction against Niche Biomedical, Inc., alleging infringement of its patent EP 3 421 081 B1 concerning neuromodulation systems. The Munich Local Division ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The court emphasized that in such proceedings, attempts to modify claims to address validity doubts are typically rejected, highlighting a strict standard for injunctive relief. This decision underscores the high bar required for patentees seeking urgent interim protection under the UPC.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a mixed action before the UPC, including an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation against Vibrantz GmbH concerning EP 3 215 288. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement lawsuit and rejected all other pending applications. While the core dispute involved technical aspects of metal sintering preparations used in electronics, the decision also touched upon complex procedural issues regarding the binding effect of national invalidity judgments across various jurisdictions.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC brought an infringement action against ASUSTek and its subsidiaries regarding the use of their 5G-enabled devices, alleging that these products utilized technology covered by EP 3 972 309. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. Crucially, the court also declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent invalid for a wide range of UPC member states, providing a significant defense for the defendants.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a combined infringement and revocation action against Vibrantz GmbH concerning the European Patent EP 3 215 288, which covers metal sintering preparations used in electronics. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the infringement claim and rejected all other related applications. Despite the loss for the claimant, the decision provided important commentary on how national law governs the binding effect of prior national revocation judgments within the UPC framework.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc, ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC brought an infringement action against ASUSTek-affiliated companies regarding their 5G products, alleging that the devices utilized technology covered by EP 3 972 309. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. Crucially, the court also declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent invalid in numerous UPC member states, providing a dual victory for the defendants.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues concerning evidence preservation and deadlines under Rule 198.1 EPGVerfO. The respondent sought to nullify an order because they argued that a change in the deadline's starting point constituted an impermissible extension of time. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that judicial discretion allows for adjusting the start date when expert reports are delayed. This ruling confirms the flexibility of procedural rules to ensure fair access to evidence.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
In a significant decision, the Munich Local Court dismissed Tiroler Rohre GmbH's infringement claim against SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH regarding driving tips (ram spikes). The court accepted the defendants' technical arguments, specifically that the alleged 'ledge' was not free-standing and that the contact surface was not flat as required by the patent claims. This ruling underscores the importance of precise claim construction in UPC litigation, particularly when dealing with functional or structural limitations.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for security for costs. The court ruled in favor of Emboline, Inc., requiring AorticLab srl to provide €200,000 in security. This decision highlights that when a party themselves raises concerns about insolvency following an injunction, it satisfies the legal requirement for granting security for costs under the UPC Agreement.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for security for costs in an infringement proceeding involving solar technology. The Court ultimately granted the request, despite the Claimant's argument that non-EU domicile alone should not be grounds for such an order. The ruling hinged on practical difficulties faced by European courts when serving documents in China, specifically citing issues related to the Hague Service Convention. This case highlights how procedural enforcement challenges can override general principles of jurisdiction and cost allocation within the UPC framework.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
In a procedural ruling within the UPC Local Division, the court addressed Chainzone Technology's request for access to case files related to EP2643717. Despite initial delays and considerations regarding ongoing proceedings, the court ultimately granted the requested file access. This decision underscores the importance of transparency in UPC proceedings, even when preliminary measures like evidence preservation are involved.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
This UPC order addresses procedural rectifications requested by Meril GmbH in the infringement case concerning Edwards Lifesciences' heart valve patent (EP 3 646 825). The defendants sought corrections to technical descriptions, jurisdictional statements, and references to prior art/expert opinions within the original decision. The court accepted several of these amendments, ensuring accuracy in the record while maintaining the ongoing nature of the dispute.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH
This UPC case focused on procedural jurisdiction and admissibility rather than the merits of infringement. The claimant, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, filed an infringement suit in Munich against S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International and Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH regarding patent EP 3 685 783. The respondents argued that the case was inadmissible because a similar action was pending elsewhere under Article 33(2) EPC. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, confirming Munich's jurisdiction by clarifying that an appeal does not constitute a 'case pending before another local chamber.'
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek Computer Inc.
In this UPC case involving Lenovo against ASUSTEK entities, the Local Division issued an order consolidating the proceedings. The court decided to hear both the infringement claim brought by Lenovo and the counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 682 587 together. This procedural step is significant as it streamlines the litigation process, allowing the validity of the patent to be assessed concurrently with its alleged infringement.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
In this UPC decision regarding provisional measures, the court addressed a request for security deposit to cover legal costs in an infringement proceeding. Although the claimant cited negative credit ratings and operating losses of the respondent, the court ultimately granted a reduced security order of €62,600.00. This ruling highlights the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness with financial risk management, demonstrating that economic hardship alone does not automatically preclude the requirement for security.
SnowPixie Co., Ltd. v.Unnamed (Verletzungsklägerin)
This UPC decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning the provision of security for legal costs in an infringement case. The court found that while the respondent (the defendant) faced financial strain, evidenced by an operating loss, they were still capable of providing the required security deposit. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to furnish €62,600.00 in security, rejecting the claimant's initial demand for a much higher sum.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd has initiated an infringement lawsuit against Netgear International Limited and its affiliates concerning European Patent EP 3 678 321. Crucially, the court has consolidated this infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation, meaning both sides will argue simultaneously on whether the patent is valid and if it is being infringed. This procedural consolidation sets the stage for a comprehensive trial in Munich.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue: establishing 'good service' when serving documents internationally, specifically in China. The applicant sought confirmation that the extensive attempts to serve the preliminary measures application constituted valid notification despite the lack of formal delivery certificates. The Court granted this request, effectively deeming the steps taken as good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. This ruling provides significant procedural relief for applicants facing protracted international service challenges.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
In this UPC case concerning an application for preliminary measures, the Court addressed a critical procedural hurdle: service of documents on a defendant domiciled in China. Despite extensive efforts—including formal and informal attempts under the Hague Service Convention—the court found that traditional service methods had failed to yield a certificate of delivery. The judge ruled that these unsuccessful steps constituted 'good service' under Rule 275.2 RoP, effectively allowing the proceedings to move forward despite the lack of confirmed receipt by the defendant.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning service of documents in cross-border litigation, specifically involving China. The applicant sought confirmation that the extensive efforts made to serve the preliminary measures application constituted 'good service' despite the failure of formal and informal methods under the Hague Service Convention. The Court granted this request, effectively validating the steps taken by the registry. This ruling provides significant procedural relief for applicants facing intractable service issues in foreign jurisdictions.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a request for confidentiality protection regarding sensitive recipe information in an ongoing infringement case. The court balanced the need for trade secret protection against the parties' right to conduct their defense. Ultimately, while granting strict confidentiality measures, the Court rejected the respondent's attempt to severely restrict access, allowing all named claimants to view the protected documents.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH; SSAB Europe Oy
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures, Tiroler Rohre GmbH sought an interim injunction against SSAB entities. After a hearing, the claimant withdrew its application. The court subsequently dismissed the request and ruled that since the withdrawal did not prevent future proceedings, there was no legitimate interest for the respondents to have a decision on the matter. Consequently, the claimant was ordered to cover all procedural costs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought to expand its infringement lawsuit against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH to include OTECH Germany GmbH. The UPC Local Division of Munich rejected the request for party change, citing procedural issues and process economics. While the claimant argued lack of prior knowledge regarding OTECH's activities, the court maintained that the delay was not justifiable and suggested a new separate action could be filed if necessary.
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.
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.