Short Summary
Unified Patent Court decision.
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 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation vs Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C.vsAYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring certain defendants to provide information about the design and encoding scheme of video files accessible through their streaming services. The court rejected the application, finding that the requests constituted impermissible fishing expeditions, that the plaintiffs had not exhausted all reasonably available information sources, and that the current state of the proceedings regarding patent interpretation, infringement, and validity did not justify burdening the defendants with such an information order.
Faro Technologies, Inc.vsPMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and Blankenhorn GmbH
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court addressed the allocation of costs in provisional measures proceedings under Article 62 EPGÜ concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835, after the matter became moot between the applicant Faro Technologies and the second respondent Blankenhorn GmbH. Both parties agreed the proceedings were resolved, but disputed who should bear the costs. The court declared the proceedings terminated under Rule 360 RoP and ordered Blankenhorn GmbH to bear the costs, finding that the applicant had reasonable grounds to seek court intervention and that Blankenhorn's cease-and-desist undertaking was insufficient.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbHvsBallinno B.V.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH filed a revocation action against Ballinno B.V. seeking to revoke European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1, which relates to a 'Method and system for detecting an offside situation.' The patent was owned by Ballinno and was in force in Germany and the Netherlands. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) revoked the patent with effect for Germany and the Netherlands, ordered Ballinno to bear the costs, and set the value of the proceedings at up to EUR 1,000,000.
Cretes NVvsHyler BV
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement action UPC_CFI_216/2024 and revocation counterclaim UPC_CFI_556/2024 relating to European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152 owned by Cretes NV. Cretes sought to strike Hyler's Rejoinder submissions filed one day late, and alternatively to strike new non-infringement arguments, a new exhibit, and a new non-infringement claim introduced by Hyler. The court dismissed the primary request to strike the entire Rejoinder but granted the subsidiary request, excluding paragraphs 506-510, exhibit I.21, and the new non-infringement claim from further consideration.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbHvsCeraCon GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 4 108 413. The court clarified that the claimant validly chose English as the language of the proceedings by filing its statement of claim in English and designating English pursuant to Art. 49(2) UPCA, since English is the language of the patent-in-suit and the claimant alleged infringement in multiple member states.
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.