Short Summary
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 2 043 492. Dyson Technology Limited, as plaintiff, requested the suspension of both the infringement proceedings and the related counterclaim proceedings, submitting the defendants' written consent dated January 3, 2025. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering the suspension of both proceedings and cancelling the scheduled interim hearing of May 8, 2025 and main hearing of June 3, 2025.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Munich (Spruchkörper 1) in case UPC_CFI_322/2024. The plaintiff is Dyson Technology Limited, represented by Constanze Krenz and Dr. Joshua Fiedler of DLA Piper. The defendants are SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH, represented by Wolrad Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont and Kilian Seidel of Freshfields. The patent at issue is European Patent No. 2 043 492. The proceedings concern an infringement action (ACT_35930/2024) and a related counterclaim action (CC_54802/2024).
The matter before the court was a procedural request under Rule 295.d of the Rules of Procedure for the suspension of proceedings. The plaintiff filed a request to suspend both the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim proceedings. In support of this request, the plaintiff submitted as Annex 1 a written consent from the defendants to the suspension, dated January 3, 2025. Both parties were thus in agreement regarding the suspension.
& Analysis: The order was issued by the presiding judge Dr. Matthias Zigann acting as the rapporteur. Given that both parties consented to the suspension of the proceedings, the court granted the request without further substantive analysis. The procedural language of the proceedings is German.
Final Order & Ruling: The court ordered that (1) the infringement proceedings (ACT_35930/2024) and the counterclaim proceedings (CC_54802/2024) are suspended, and (2) the scheduled dates of May 8, 2025 (interim hearing) and June 3, 2025 (main hearing) are cancelled. The order was issued as Order No. ORD_499/2025 in proceedings ACT_35930/2024. Any party may request review of this order by the panel pursuant to Rule 333 RoP, but the order remains effective until such review (Rule 102.2 RoP).
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 Dyson Technology Limited vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsRespondent
This case concerned a fee refund dispute following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and counterclaims after an out-of-court settlement. The parties requested a 60% refund of court fees, but the presiding judge initially granted only 40% under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff sought review to obtain the higher 60% refund, and the defendants joined this request. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the 40% refund, holding that the complex and intensively pursued nature of the dispute constituted an exceptional case under Rule 370.9(e).
Emboline, Inc.vsAorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. alleged that AorticLab srl's 'FLOWer' embolic protection device infringed European Patent EP 2 129 425, which relates to an embolic protection device with a cylindrical outer structure and conical inner structure for capturing emboli. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the attacked embodiment did not include a pull loop or other graspable structure engageable by a hook as required by claim 1 of the patent. The defendant's conditional counterclaim for invalidity was not decided because it was dependent on a finding of infringement, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the counterclaim.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, BEGA-Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co KG, BEGA BBK Sp. z o.o. sp. K and NEG Novex Großhandelsgesellschaft für Elektro- und Haustechnik GmbHvsWashtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures granted by The Hague Local Division in favor of Washtower against Bega regarding EP 3 522 755. Washtower applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP, with Bega's consent, subject to conditions regarding costs and damages. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, ordered Washtower to bear the costs of both instances, ordered Washtower to compensate Bega for any injury caused by the provisional measures, and determined the value in dispute at € 530,000.
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.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)vsShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
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.