Ulrike Vo
52 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
52 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH v.CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG
ALPINA Coffee Systems appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf finding infringement of EP 3 398 487 and sought suspensive effect of the appeal. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, finding that ALPINA failed to demonstrate that the contested decision was evidently erroneous, that enforcement would render the appeal moot, or that fundamental procedural rights were violated, and that its arguments regarding potential double modification of the accused embodiment due to parallel proceedings were too vague and speculative.
Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendants' request for discretionary review of a Procedural Order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning patent EP 4 295 806. The Local Division had retroactively extended the Applicant's deadline to file a reply after the Applicant submitted an incorrect document from another case due to human error. The Court of Appeal held that the Local Division correctly applied Rule 9.3(a) RoP rather than Rule 320 RoP, and that the impugned Order was not manifestly incorrect.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Ors.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1. Following settlement negotiations, the Claimant and Defendants 1–4 reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, and Defendant 5 agreed to the withdrawal. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs, and granted the Claimant a 60% reimbursement of court fees (€6,600).
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1, brought by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek. The court granted Defendant 2's (MediaTek Germany GmbH) application for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP, ordering Huawei to provide security of €150,000 within six weeks, finding that Huawei's declaration regarding service on its German subsidiary did not adequately address enforcement concerns in China.
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB (Application for Access to Register) – NEC Corporation v.TCL Entities (EP 2 645 714)
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB, a law firm, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings between NEC Corporation and various TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. NEC opposed the request, arguing it was not a reasoned request and that the stated educational purpose was pretexted. The Local Division Munich partially granted the request, allowing access to specific written pleadings in redacted versions, with personal data redacted and appendices to be provided upon further request.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Others
The Claimant filed an infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1 before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant and Defendants 1 to 4 jointly requested a stay of proceedings due to ongoing settlement negotiations, and the Claimant also sought a stay regarding Defendant 5. The Court granted the stay under Rules 295(d) and 295(m) RoP, extended the time limit for filing the Statement of defence to five months, and ordered the parties to inform the Court if a settlement is reached.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1, relating to MediaTek's 5G-capable Dimensity series chips. The order addresses Huawei's request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for confidentiality protection of its submission dated 15.08.2025, made in response to MediaTek Germany GmbH's request for production of license agreements under Rule 190. The court granted partial confidentiality protection, classifying certain information as confidential and strictly confidential, and restricted access to specified named persons on the defendant's side.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH and MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek regarding 5G-capable Dimensity series chips. The order addresses Huawei's application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect the confidentiality of information contained in its submissions regarding license agreements and licensing negotiations. The court classified certain information as confidential and strictly confidential, restricted access to a limited number of named persons on the defendant side, and declined to decide on certain further requests at that stage.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 4 142 215. MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for trade secrets contained in its Statement of Defense (Non-Technical Part), relying on an out-of-court confidentiality agreement concluded between the parties on 11.07.2025. The court granted the application in part, ordering that certain information be treated as confidential, restricting public access, and limiting access on Huawei's side to specifically named attorneys and a limited number of natural persons, with potential fines of up to €250,000 for violations.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 4 142 215. MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for trade secrets contained in its Statement of Defense. The court granted the application in part, ordering that certain information be treated as confidential and restricting access on Huawei's side to specifically named lawyers, their support staff, and a limited number of named natural persons.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd brought a patent infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215 before the Local Chamber Munich. MediaTek Germany filed an application under Rule 190 RoP for the submission of license agreements and a related application under Rule 262A RoP seeking confidentiality protection, relying on an out-of-court confidentiality agreement concluded between the MediaTek group and Huawei on 11 July 2025. The court granted the confidentiality application in part, classifying certain information as confidential, imposing confidentiality obligations on all participants, and restricting access on Huawei's side to specified lawyers and seventeen named natural persons.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Unified Patent Court decision.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action (UPC_CFI_487/2023) relating to European patent EP 2 645 714. The order grants an extension of the deadline for both parties to submit comments on a Rule 262.1(b) RoP request, extending it from 30 July 2025 to 12 August 2025 due to the absence of the Claimant's representatives. The order also addresses confidentiality protections for written submissions and exhibits.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 3 742 231. The parties jointly requested a stay of the infringement and revocation proceedings, as well as the application to amend the patent, to facilitate pending settlement negotiations without the pressure of ongoing litigation. The court granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP until three months after the next oral proceedings of the Board of Appeal in the parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings (T0187/24.-3.4.03), and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing of 7 October 2025.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This case concerned an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 602 692, accompanied by a revocation counterclaim. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement claim and the defendants withdrew the revocation counterclaim. The court allowed both withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and addressed the refund of court fees, setting the value of the infringement claim at €750,000 and the revocation counterclaim at €1,125,000.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku, Inc.
Sun Patent Trust sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) and Anti-Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AAEI) against Roku, Inc. before the Local Chamber Munich after Roku filed a US lawsuit seeking Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Injunctions. The court initially granted the interim measures ex parte, but upon Roku's request for review, found the application moot after Roku amended its US complaint and provided cease-and-desist declarations. The court ordered Roku to bear the costs, holding that a prior warning was unnecessary given Roku had already initiated court proceedings for an ASI/AEI.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This case concerns a review application by Roku, Inc. regarding an ex parte order granting Dolby International AB an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) and Anti-Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AAEI) before the Local Chamber Munich. The court declared the application for interim measures moot and the proceedings terminated, but held that Roku bore the costs because a prior cease-and-desist letter was unnecessary given Roku had already initiated US proceedings seeking Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Injunctions against Dolby.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215 before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court. Huawei sought an order to protect confidential information and trade secrets contained in its complaint. The court granted the request in part, classifying the grey-highlighted information and marked attachments as confidential and ordering all participants in the proceedings to treat them as such, while declining to impose access restrictions on the defendants themselves.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd requested that certain information in its complaint be classified as confidential and that all participants in the proceedings be obligated to maintain confidentiality, including after the proceedings conclude. The court granted the request, classifying the identified information as confidential and ordering that it be kept confidential by all persons involved in the proceedings.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This is a cost-setting decision (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in full, the claimant MSG Maschinenbau GmbH withdrew its infringement action, and the court ordered MSG to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. The defendant EJP Maschinen GmbH sought reimbursement of €20,797.00 for infringement costs and €18,697.50 for revocation costs, and the court granted a total of €33,224.50, partially reducing the claimed amounts.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This is a cost determination decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in its entirety, the plaintiff (MSG) withdrew its infringement action and was ordered to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. The defendant (EJP) sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court set the recoverable costs at €33,224.50, rejecting the plaintiff's objections to certain attorney fees and the claim for interest on the costs.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendants' objection (Einspruch) under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 903 267. The defendants had argued that the UPC lacks jurisdiction because the UPC Agreement is incompatible with EU primary law (TEU and TFEU), relying on CJEU Opinion 1/09. The court held that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a valid ground for objection under Rule 19(1), and that for establishing jurisdiction, a prima facie allegation of infringement suffices without proof of actual or imminent infringement.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
The Claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 742 231 by adding the Netherlands to the list of countries for which infringement was asserted and an injunction sought. The court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant 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) RoP.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others
GXD-Bio Corporation sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 346 403 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants filed a preliminary objection arguing the court lacked competence to adjudicate claims for acts predating GXD-Bio's recordal as patent proprietor. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the defendants' arguments concerned standing and substantive ownership rather than jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and allowed an appeal.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
This is a decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Munich, concerning the confirmation of a settlement agreement and a confidentiality order. BSN Medical GmbH had sued the defendants for infringement of European patents EP 3 033 058 and EP 3 831 350, but the parties subsequently settled the dispute. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered that the details of the settlement be treated confidentially, and ruled that each party bears its own costs as agreed in the settlement.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that took place before the UPCA entered into force on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and subsequent opt-in. The court held that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on pre-entry-into-force acts of use. The defendants' auxiliary request for a stay and referral to the CJEU was also rejected, and appeal was allowed.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a procedural objection (R. 19.1(a) and R. 20.1 RoP) raised by the defendants against an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 602 692. The defendants argued that the court lacked temporal jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts occurring before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The presiding judge rejected the objection, holding that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA's entry into force and/or between an opt-out and its withdrawal.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd. et al.
Qualcomm Incorporated filed a patent infringement action on 17 July 2024 before the Local Division Munich against six defendants concerning European patent EP 2 286 325. After reaching a settlement with Defendant 1 (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings), Qualcomm withdrew the action on 17 January 2025 and applied for a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of €18,600.00 to the Claimant.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a cost reimbursement application following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 1 770 912. The applicant, Avago Technologies, withdrew its interim measures application after the court had already issued an ex parte order, and sought reimbursement of 20% of court fees. The court held that Rule 370.9(b) RoP applies analogously to the withdrawal of an application for interim measures and ordered reimbursement of €2,200.00.
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.