Short Summary
This case concerned an infringement action filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against three Netgear entities regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321, accompanied by a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties reached a settlement and jointly applied for leave to withdraw their respective claims. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 40% refund of the court fees paid by each party, with each side bearing its own costs.
Detailed Summary
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (represented by Dr. Tobias J. Hessel of Clifford Chance) filed an infringement action against Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited (represented by Dr. Stephan Dorn of Freshfields) concerning European Patent No. 3 678 321. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent, along with related applications to amend the patent. The proceedings were assigned to Panel 1 of the Local Division Munich, presided over by Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann as the reporting judge. The language of proceedings was German.
The matter was an infringement action combined with a counterclaim for revocation. Rather than proceeding to a substantive hearing, both parties reached a settlement. The plaintiff applied for leave to withdraw its infringement action and consented to the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation. Conversely, the defendants applied for leave to withdraw their counterclaim and consented to the withdrawal of the plaintiff's main action. Both parties jointly requested a refund of 40% of the court fees each had paid.
& Analysis: The court reasoned that, given the parties' agreement, the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (including the related patent amendment applications) should be permitted. Under Rule 265.2(c) of the Rules of Procedure, upon granting leave to withdraw, the court must issue a cost decision in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5, without requiring a specific application from either party. The court noted that the mutual agreement of the parties could be taken into account in the cost decision.
Final Order & Ruling: The court granted the applications for leave to withdraw the infringement action (ACT_18917/2024) and the counterclaim for revocation (CC_20512/2024), including the related patent amendment applications (App_38854/2024 and App_38684/2024). The proceedings were declared terminated, and the decision was ordered to be entered in the register. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, with no cost reimbursement between the parties. The dispute value was set at EUR 1 million for both the main action and the counterclaim. Both parties were granted a 40% refund of the court fees paid for the action and counterclaim respectively, with the refund to be processed through the attorneys' office accounts. The scheduled interim hearing on January 16, 2025, and the oral hearing on March 25, 2025, were 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 Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Szymon SpyravsRespondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/04/2025 regarding R.320 – re-establishment APPLICANT - – PL (Defendant in the main action, hereinafter: “Defendant”) Represented by Michal
Fujifilm CorporationvsRespondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH)vsQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This case concerns an appeal by Huawei Technologies against a decision of the Local Division Munich regarding an application by Quinn Emanuel for inspection of court files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. The underlying infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek had been terminated before Quinn Emanuel's application was filed. The Court of Appeal addressed whether decisions of the Rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP can be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333 RoP, and confirmed that the legal remedy against the panel's decision is appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP.
SharkNinja Operating LLCvsGroupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This case arose from SharkNinja's appeal of a Paris Local Division decision dismissing its application for provisional measures against SEB concerning EP 3 689 198. SharkNinja filed a request under R. 262A RoP to protect certain commercial market data as confidential, while SEB raised procedural objections regarding unsigned filings and requested extensions of time. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of electronic signature requirements under R. 4.1 RoP, retroactive extension of time periods under R. 9.3(a) RoP, and the scope of confidentiality protection, ultimately granting partial confidentiality protection with access limited to four named SEB employees.
Sun Patent Trust, Sabine AgévsVivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
This is an order from the Paris Local Division following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3852468. The order sets the total value of the dispute at 10 million euros (5 million for the infringement action and 5 million for the counterclaim for revocation), schedules oral hearings for 9-11 September 2026, and identifies the main legal points to be argued. The case involves complex issues of claim construction regarding DRX Active Time features, validity challenges based on prior art documents, alleged infringement by 4G+ compatible Vivo devices, and FRAND-related matters including the admissibility of certain claims and anti-trust law defences.
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.