Short Summary
Unified Patent Court decision.
Detailed Summary
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion regarding the production of corporate documents in an infringement case involving Avago Technologies and Tesla. The respondents sought internal Board of Directors resolutions to challenge the claimant's legal standing (active legitimation) concerning patent ownership and assignment validity. The court partially granted this request, compelling the claimant to produce specific transfer authorization documents necessary for the respondent to properly defend their position under Rule 190.1.
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 Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited vs Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l.vsA.G.A. S.r.l., Azienda Chimica e Farmaceutica S.r.l. (A.C.E.F. S.r.l.), and MFCI Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC CFI n. 2052/2025, concerning a joint request by all parties to suspend proceedings. Defendant MFCI Co., Ltd. filed the request citing ongoing settlement negotiations, and all other parties consented. The court granted the suspension under Rule 295.1(d) RoP, holding that the proceedings would be stayed until four weeks after any party files a request to resume.
ApplicantvsAmycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declared a second application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) inadmissible. The Applicant, who was the defendant in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350, had already filed a first application for suspensive effect that was rejected on 16 January 2026. The second application, filed on 20 February 2026, raised arguments identical or very similar to those in the first application, and the court held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the new submissions could not reasonably have been made in the previous application.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd.vsInsulet Corporation (Cost Compensation Proceedings)
This procedural order from the Central Division (Milan section) of the Unified Patent Court addressed EOFLOW's application for cost reimbursement following the rejection of Insulet's request for a preliminary injunction (PI) based on alleged infringement of EP 4201327. The Court dismissed EOFLOW's cost application without examining the substance, holding that when a preliminary injunction is followed by proceedings on the merits, cost compensation must be assessed at the conclusion of the overall merits proceedings rather than at the PI stage.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOKvsHurom Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Defendants' request under R. 262A RoP seeking to classify information they were ordered to provide to the Claimant as confidential. The court held that R. 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings, not to information ordered to be disclosed pursuant to a decision on the merits, and that the existing restrictions on the use of the information sufficiently protected the Defendants' interests.
ALD France S.A.SvsNanoval GmbH & Co . KG
Anordnung
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.