Short Summary
This case concerns a rectification of a scheduling order in an infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court identified a typographical error in Item 4 of the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025 and ordered its correction to accurately reflect the oral hearing arrangements. The corrected Item 4 specifies that the oral hearing is scheduled for 15 January 2026 at 9:00 a.m., to be held in person in Munich.
Detailed Summary
This case involves an infringement action (ACT_59975/2024) before the Local Division Munich, with case number 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: The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Disney Interactive Studios, Inc. (Burbank, California, US), and The Walt Disney Company Limited (London, GB), represented by Dr. Dietrich Kamlah, Dr. Christian Lederer, Dr. Michael Schächinger, and Teresa Gaboardi of Taylor Wessing. The patent at issue is European Patent No. 2 793 430.
The subject matter of these proceedings is the rectification of a scheduling order pursuant to Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure. The court noted that this was a correction of a typo in the previously issued scheduling order.
& Analysis: The deciding judges—Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann (acting as Judge-Rapporteur), and legally qualified judges Mélanie Bessaud and Tobias Pichlmaier—identified a typographical error in the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025. The court determined that Item 4 of the scheduling order required correction to accurately reflect the oral hearing arrangements.
Final Order & Ruling: The court ordered the rectification of the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025. Item 4 was corrected to read: "The oral hearing is scheduled for 15 January 2026, 9.00 a.m., in person in Denisstr. 3 in Munich, room 212 and overflow room 220b." The court also instructed the registry to correct the scheduling order on the court's website accordingly. The order was issued as Order no. ORD_13670/2025.
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., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KGvsBette GmbH & Co. KG
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1, with Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG as plaintiff and Bette GmbH & Co. KG as defendant. The dispute involved issues of prior use rights, indirect patent infringement, remedies including recall and removal from distribution channels, disclosure of accounting books, and information requests. The court issued guiding principles on the territorial scope of prior use defenses, the procedural stage at which disclosure of books may be ordered, the scope of information rights during infringement proceedings, the distinction between recall and final removal from distribution channels, and the timing requirements for retroactive deadline extension requests.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KGvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The defendant requested that certain sections of the claimant's reply brief dated August 25, 2025 be disregarded under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that the claimant was only permitted to respond to the auxiliary request for patent amendment under Rule 32.3 RoP, and not to address the patent in its granted form. The defendant alternatively sought leave to reply to those sections and an extension of the reply deadline under Rule 336 RoP.
Advanced Standard Communication LLCvsXIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-05-19) under reference UPC_7C0E224273, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Gowling WLG (applicant) in Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbHvsZentiva Portugal, LDA.
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, requested access under R. 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_446/2025 and 520/2025) concerning EP 1 830 843. The Court of Appeal held that reasoned requests for access must be made separately to each instance, that requests must be specified and cannot require the Court to search and select documents, and granted partial access to the written pleadings with redactions for personal data and confidential information while dismissing the request for exhibits as overly broad.
Leap Tools Inc.vsWizart Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendant's request for security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in proceedings concerning EP 3 859 566. The Defendant, Wizart Inc., sought at least EUR 300,000 in security, arguing that the Claimant, Leap Tools Inc., is a Canadian company with no UPC presence and limited annual revenue. The Court held that the Defendant failed to meet its burden of substantiation, as it neither addressed applicable Canadian law regarding enforcement of foreign judgments nor demonstrated that the Claimant's financial position raised legitimate concerns about recoverability of costs.
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.