Short Summary
This procedural order concerns a joint request by the parties to stay infringement and revocation proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 742 231 in order to facilitate settlement negotiations without the pressure of ongoing litigation. The court granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP until three months after the next oral proceedings of the EPO Board of Appeal in the parallel opposition appeal (T0187/24.-3.4.03), and cancelled the previously scheduled oral hearing of 7 October 2025.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß of Panel 2 of the Local Division Munich on 16 June 2025 in case UPC_CFI_483/2024. The claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, represented by Dr Steininger of Hogan Lovells International LLP, brought an infringement action (ACT_46804/2024) against three defendants: XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l., represented by Dr Pansch of rospatt Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation (CC_65945/2024) and an application to amend the patent (Application No. 28386/2025). The patent at issue is European Patent EP 3 742 231.
The subject of the proceedings was a joint request by the parties to stay the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP. The parties sought the suspension to enable fruitful settlement negotiations to proceed without the pressure of ongoing litigation. They also jointly requested the Board of Appeal of the EPO to shift the oral hearing scheduled for 18 June 2025 in the parallel opposition appeal proceedings (T0187/24.-3.4.03). The request for suspension of the proceedings was made regardless of whether the EPO actually shifted its oral proceedings. The parties further agreed that none of them would be entitled to request resumption of the proceedings prior to three months after the next oral proceedings of the Board of Appeal in the opposition appeal proceedings without the other party's consent.
& Analysis: The court accepted the joint request of the parties and applied Rule 295(d) RoP to stay the proceedings. The court aligned the duration of the stay with the timeline of the parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings, conditioning resumption on the conclusion of those proceedings plus a three-month buffer period.
Final Order & Ruling: The court ordered that: (1) the proceedings — including the infringement case ACT_46804/2024, the counterclaim for revocation CC_65945/2024, and the application to amend the patent — are stayed pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP until three months after the next oral proceedings of the Board of Appeal in the opposition appeal proceedings T0187/24.-3.4.03; (2) the proceedings can be resumed prior to that date only at the joint request of the parties; and (3) the oral hearing previously scheduled for 7 October 2025 is cancelled.
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 Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant)vsVILPE Oy (defendant)
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2026-04-08) under reference UPC_95D854827E, WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) appeared in dispute with VILPE Oy (defendant) concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril GmbHvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning Meril's applications under Rule 353 RoP for rectification of the court's decision of 4 April 2025 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 669 828 (titled 'Prosthetic Heart Valve'). The court granted rectification of five items (1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) relating to corrections of claim references, a date error, translation errors in operative orders, and the claims asserted, but dismissed the remaining three items (4, 5, and 6) as unfounded.
Adeia Guides Inc.vsThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. Et al.
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP1969839, brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of both actions under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure, along with a 40% reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered a 20% reimbursement of court fees to each side, dismissing the request for a higher reimbursement percentage.
Prozessbevollmächtigte:vsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a request for correction of a prior patent infringement decision dated May 6, 2026, relating to EP 4 117 857 B1. The defendant, Magna-Tec e.K., filed eleven specific correction requests under R. 353 of the Rules of Procedure, seeking to fix typographical errors, incomplete statements, and obvious oversights in the earlier decision. The court partially granted the correction request, finding that some of the identified discrepancies clearly deviated from the court's actual intent at the time of the original decision.
Occlutech GmbH, Jena, GermanyvsLepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Beijing, China, Elisabetta Papa, technically qualified judge
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-18) under reference UPC_65E51F0C0C, Occlutech GmbH, Jena, Germany appeared in dispute with Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Beijing, China, Elisabetta Papa, technically qualified judge concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.