Short Summary
This is a procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities concerning European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court scheduled the proceedings, setting dates for the written procedure, interim conference, and oral hearing, and confirmed that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation would proceed together with the parties' consent.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Local Division Munich in case UPC_CFI_665/2024. The claimant is Adeia Guides Inc., a company based in San Jose, California, represented by Prof. Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy of Bardehle Pagenberg. The defendants are three Walt Disney entities: (1) The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. based in Amsterdam, (2) Disney Interactive Studios, Inc. based in Burbank, California, and (3) The Walt Disney Company Limited based in London. The defendants were represented by Dr. Dietrich Kamlah, Dr. Christian Lederer, Dr. Michael Schächinger, and Teresa Gaboardi of Taylor Wessing, supported by Dr. Joel Nägerl and Dr. Lorenz Walder-Hartmann of Zimmermann & Partner. The patent at issue is European Patent No. 2 793 430, and the language of proceedings is English.
The proceedings concern a patent infringement action. The order addresses scheduling matters under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure. A counterclaim for revocation was also filed by the defendants. Both parties consented to having the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation heard together.
& Analysis: The Panel, consisting of Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann (acting as Judge-Rapporteur) and legally qualified judges Mélanie Bessaud and Tobias Pichlmaier, issued the procedural order on 18 March 2025. The court determined that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation should proceed jointly given the consent of both parties. The court also requested the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Final Order & Ruling: The court ordered the following: (1) The Panel will proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, as both parties consented; (2) The President of the Court of First Instance was requested to allocate a technically qualified judge to the panel; (3) The interim conference was set for 4 December 2025 at 4 p.m. via videoconference; (4) The oral hearing was scheduled for 15 January 2025 (as stated in the order text, though this date appears to predate the order itself) at 9:00 a.m., in person in Munich; (5) All parties were summoned to attend; (6) Parties were invited to submit suggestions for the interim conference via a Rule-9-application by 20 November 2025; and (7) The written procedure was set to end on 10 September 2025. The order also included standard information regarding public access to the oral hearing, audio recording, absence or delay of representatives, and the possibility of decisions by default.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Adeia Guides Inc. vs The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. ao is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.