Short Summary
This order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three NETGEAR entities regarding European Patents EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321, both granted in English. The court addressed whether to change the procedural language from German to English, and whether the oral hearing should be conducted in English. The defendants consented to a change of language to English, while the plaintiff opposed a full change but was open to conducting the oral hearing in English. The presiding judge ultimately ordered that the oral hearing be conducted in English, applying the flexibility principles of Rule 1.1 RoP.
Detailed Summary
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd filed a patent infringement action against NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited before the Local Chamber Munich. The action initially concerned European Patent EP 3 611 989, filed on 01/06/2023. By written submission dated 23/11/2023, Huawei sought to extend the action to include claims arising from European Patent EP 3 678 321. Both patents were granted in English. The procedural language of the proceedings was German.
The Reporting Judge allowed the extension of the action on 11/12/2023 in order APP_587438/2023. A request under Rule 333 RoP was filed and already decided, with appeal being admitted. The panel subsequently ordered the separation of the subject matter of the extension under ORD_593105/2023, and the appeal was also admitted in that respect.
The central issue concerned the language of the proceedings. Two members of the panel did not have German as their mother tongue, and at least one member required simultaneous interpretation for the oral hearing. The remaining panel members indicated openness to changing the procedural language to English. The defendants consented to a change of the procedural language to English. The plaintiff, however, did not consent to a full change of language but expressed openness to conducting the oral hearing in English, suggesting reliance on the exception provided in Rule 14.2(c) RoP.
& Analysis
The Reporting Judge pointed out that conducting the oral hearing in English could not be based on Rule 14.2(c) RoP, because that provision addresses the reverse scenario—namely, the possibility of conducting proceedings in a language other than the procedural language when the procedural language is not English. The court applied the principles of Rule 1.1 RoP in conjunction with paragraph 4 of the Preamble to the Rules of Procedure, which require the rules to be applied with the necessary degree of discretion in a flexible and balanced manner so that proceedings can be conducted as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.
Final Order & Ruling
Based on these considerations, the court ordered that the oral hearing be conducted in English, even though the procedural language of the case remained German. The headnotes of the order confirm that the principles of efficiency and cost-effectiveness under Rule 1.1 RoP justified conducting the oral hearing in English under the circumstances of the case.
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 Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Dolby International ABvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns the extension of deadlines for the reply to the infringement action and the response to the counterclaim for revocation in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court established that while R. 9.3(a) RoP empowers the court to extend deadlines, such extensions should be granted cautiously and only in justified exceptional cases. The court held that restricted access to unredacted submissions due to R. 262A RoP confidentiality requests constitutes such an exceptional case, requiring that the party and its representatives have sufficient time to develop a unified strategy addressing both infringement and validity issues.
Align Technology, Inc.vsAngelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' request for security for legal costs in provisional measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The court held that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of substantiation regarding the alleged difficulty of enforcing a costs order in the United States, as their reliance on a prior Munich Local Division order was insufficient to establish facts specific to this case.
AorticLab srlvsEmboline, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Munich Local Division that had required AorticLab to provide security for costs of €200,000 in an infringement action brought by Emboline concerning EP 2 129 425. The Court held that Article 69(4) UPCA deliberately restricts the right to request security for costs to defendants, and that this rationale does not extend to a claimant in an infringement action seeking security against a defendant who has filed a counterclaim for revocation.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna et al
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance addresses several applications by the parties in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP2590626. The primary issue is GSK's application under Rule 263 to amend its claim to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE within the definition of 'Spikevax Infringing Products.' Moderna opposes the amendment, arguing it could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage given the FDA's prior approval of mNEXSPIKE in the United States.
KEEEX SASvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns a request by defendant ADOBE to modify the security for costs (guarantee for litigation costs) under Rule 158 RoP in a patent infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS (holder of EP294070) against multiple defendants including Adobe, OpenAI, TruePic, and C2PA. The Local Division of Paris had previously ordered KEEEX to provide a €200,000 bank guarantee by order of December 19, 2025. ADOBE sought a substantial increase to €1,800,000 (or subsidiarily €1,300,000 or €80
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.