Zusammensetzung des Spruchk
7 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
7 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of the court file under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in a preliminary evidence preservation proceeding relating to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The patent holder SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. raised no objection, noting that Chainzone had already been admitted as an intervenor in related proceedings before the Local Chamber Vienna. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering that file inspection be provided subject to redaction of personal data to be identified by SWARCO within ten days.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerned a patent infringement action brought by KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 221 117. Following an oral hearing on April 16, 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 a 20% reimbursement of court fees to the plaintiff under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a procedural dispute in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP 3 024 163 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The defendants, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH, requested an extension of the deadline to file their Duplik (reply) to the infringement claim, the reply to the counterclaim for revocation, and the response to the patent amendment request, until September 17, 2024. The court found that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' of its reply, with redacted portions serving as placeholders for later submissions, was impermissible, but granted an exception since this issue was being addressed for the first time.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns an application by Panasonic Holdings Corporation for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 024 163. Panasonic sought to classify certain information related to ongoing FRAND license negotiations with the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) as strictly confidential, including grey-highlighted submissions and exhibits labeled 'Anlagen KAP FRAND'. The defendants requested that access to such confidential information be restricted to specific named persons. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann of the Local Chamber Munich.
STAÛBLI TEC-SYSTEMS GMBH v.***
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 concerning a method for controlling the speed and positioning of a tool change carriage. In response to prior art documents submitted with the nullity action, the patent proprietors disclaimed the patent, rendering the main case moot under Rule 360. The court addressed the cost allocation, holding that it would generally be inequitable to impose costs on the patent proprietor who immediately disclaims the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity complaint.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 1 838 002, with Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited as the plaintiff alleging patent infringement against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation of the patent. The court addressed the procedural question under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court regarding whether the infringement action and revocation counterclaims should be heard together or separated. Both parties agreed that the action and counterclaims should be heard together before the same panel, and the court ordered that they be jointly heard before the Local Chamber Munich.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315 before the Local Chamber Munich. Following an oral hearing on January 30, 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to confirm the settlement. The defendant consented to the settlement and both parties jointly requested its confirmation, confidentiality of its details, and noted that costs were already settled within the agreement.
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.