Short Summary
Procedural Order
Detailed Summary
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addresses a security for costs dispute in an ongoing UPC case involving Syntorr LP and Arthrex. The Court rejected the Claimant's proposal to use litigation insurance as adequate security. Instead, it mandated that the Claimant provide €2 million in security by September 30, 2025. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of Rule 158(1) RoP regarding acceptable forms of financial guarantees in UPC proceedings.
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 Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V. vs Ex Parte is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
NJOY Netherlands B.V.vsVMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 456 214, which relates to vaporizers/electronic cigarettes, on the grounds of lack of inventive step based on prior art documents 'Pan' and 'Cross'. The defendant filed conditional applications to amend the patent with multiple auxiliary requests. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the grounds for invalidity well founded, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsMediaTek, 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.
Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA - Application to Intervene in Accord HealthcarevsNovartis AG (EP 2501384)
Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA applied to intervene under Rule 313 RoP in a Declaration of Non-Infringement action brought by Accord Healthcare entities against Novartis AG concerning EP 2501384 (nilotinib for chronic myeloid leukemia). The Central Division (Milan) dismissed the application, holding that parallel commercial interests and factual similarity do not establish a legal interest to intervene, and that Zentiva's remedies would be contradictory to those of Accord. Zentiva was ordered to bear the costs of the sub-proceedings, with a cost ceiling of 38,000 euros.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.vsAscendis Pharma A/S and Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning a preliminary objection filed by Ascendis Pharma in an infringement action brought by BioMarin Pharmaceutical regarding European patent 3 175 863 (Variants of C-Type Natriuretic Peptide). Ascendis challenged the validity of BioMarin's withdrawal of opt-out and argued that BioMarin failed to establish the court's competence by not sufficiently alleging infringing acts. The presiding judge rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, finding the opt-out withdrawal valid and that BioMarin had sufficiently shown actual and threatened infringement occurring in Germany.
Nicoventures Trading Limited - Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (APL_322/2025)vsEx Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal between NJOY Netherlands B.V. and Juul Labs International, Inc. concerning EP 3 504 991, citing its involvement in parallel EPO opposition proceedings against the same patent. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically listed documents but dismissed the broader request for unspecified documents, imposing a condition that Nicoventures may not file the pleadings with other courts or judicial instances until the UPC appeal is closed.
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.