Short Summary
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 1 838 002, in which patent attorney Christian Läufer requested access to court filings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure as a member of the public for learning and training purposes. Neither the plaintiff (Avago Technologies) nor the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) raised objections to the request. The presiding judge granted the applicant access to the filings and annexes in the counterclaim for revocation workflow, but not to the infringement proceedings file or other workflows.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the Local Chamber Munich (Spruchkörper 1) on January 27, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patent No. 1 838 002. The plaintiff is Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, a Singapore-based entity represented by Dr. Bernd Allekotte of Grünecker. The defendants are Tesla Germany GmbH (Berlin) and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE (Grünheide), represented by Dr. Marcus Grosch of Quinn Emanuel Urquart & Sullivan. The underlying case (UPC_CFI_52/2023) involves an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation (Nichtigkeitswiderklage, CC_581177/2023).
Patent attorney Christian Läufer of Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB filed an application under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure seeking access as a member of the public to the written submissions and evidence filed in the case management system. He cited a professional and scientific interest in the documents, particularly for learning and training purposes, and referenced a Court of Appeal decision of April 10, 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023) as establishing that such interest is sufficient. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants raised objections, provided that the access was limited to the counterclaim for revocation proceedings (CC_581177/2023).
& Analysis: The presiding judge, Dr. Matthias Zigann, acting as the rapporteur, noted that since no party raised objections, the applicant was entitled to access. The court reasoned that the access should be limited to the written submissions and annexes filed in the counterclaim for revocation workflow (CC_581177/2023) within the main case (UPC_CFI_52/2023), and should not extend to the infringement proceedings file or other workflows. No redaction requests were made by any party.
Final Order & Ruling: The court granted the application in respect of the counterclaim for revocation proceedings (CC_581177/2023, UPC_CFI_52/2023), including the associated annexes. The registry was instructed to provide the applicant with access to the relevant filings. The order remains effective pending any review by the panel under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure, and any party may request such review.
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 Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbHvsKoninklijke Philips N.V.
This case concerned an appeal and cross-appeal against an order of the Local Division Munich dated December 17, 2024, regarding coercive fines imposed on Belkin for non-compliance with an information obligation under Article 67(1) EPGÜ. The Court of Appeal addressed five key legal questions relating to the setting of deadlines for providing information, the imposition of coercive fines even after belated compliance, the burden of proof regarding compliance, the scope of required disclosures (including manufacturer prices), and the permissible form of the information. The Court issued five guiding principles clarifying the procedural framework for enforcing information orders and the conditions for imposing coercive fines.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de RennesvsEuropean Patent Office (EPO)
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande d'annulation d'une décision prise par l'Office de rejet d'une demande d'effet unitaire (R. 97 RdP) rendue le 16 septembre 2025 EN-TETE • Conformément aux dispositions de la Règle 85(2) RdP,
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o.vsReddy Pharma SAS a.o.
This case concerned European Patent 2,493,466, held by Sanofi SA, relating to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer. Sanofi filed infringement actions against STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva entities for marketing generic versions of its JEVTANA product, while the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs.
Maxell, Ltd.vsSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2061230. The court dismissed Samsung's request to extend the deadline for filing its rejoinder/reply submissions and admitted Maxell's 44 auxiliary requests into the proceedings. The court found the number of auxiliary requests reasonable given the large number of invalidity attacks asserted by Samsung and the manageable number of new features actually introduced.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.vsRespondent
This case concerns an application for reimbursement of court fees following the settlement of an appeal in a patent revocation action. Tandem Diabetes had filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes regarding EP 2 196 231, which was dismissed by the Central Division Paris. After the parties settled, Tandem Diabetes sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that, since the written procedure had not been closed at the time of settlement, Tandem Diabetes was entitled to a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees.
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.