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
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital UK Limited, Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc.,vsInterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS
Amazon sought suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP for its appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that prohibited Amazon from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court that would impede InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The Court of Appeal, presided by Judge Klaus Grabinski, dismissed Amazon's request, finding that Amazon had not demonstrated the impugned order was manifestly erroneous or that irreversible harm was imminent.
Guardant Health, Inc.vsSophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics group before the Paris Local Division, alleging infringement of four European patents (EP 3470533, EP 3591073, EP 3443066, EP 3766986) relating to liquid biopsy technology for cancer diagnosis. The Court addressed three key issues: whether the Applicant had delayed unreasonably in filing the application, whether the divisional patent contained added matter, and whether the Applicant had demonstrated infringement with sufficient certainty. The Court found that a three-month delay was reasonable given the complexity of the case, that the divisional patent contained added matter because the claimed invention could not be directly and unambiguously derived from the original PCT application, and that the Applicant failed to meet its burden of proof for infringement by relying solely on a press release.
1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UABvsEDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
In this legal proceeding before Stockholm (SE) - Seat of the Regional Division (decision issued on 2026-05-12) under reference UPC_BA5D0405D2, 1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB appeared in dispute with EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Beko Germany GmbH., Eschborn, GermanyvsDolby International AB, Dublin, Irland, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-28) under reference UPC_79AAF0ABDE, Beko Germany GmbH., Eschborn, Germany appeared in dispute with Dolby International AB, Dublin, Irland, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Pfizer AB , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NVvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) sought security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant (Promosome LLC) proposed a lower amount. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly while rejecting the request for a default decision.
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.