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 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
Corning IncorporatedvsHisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning patent EP 3 296 274, in which defendants from the Hisense, TCL, and LG groups sought a stay of proceedings under R. 295(m) RoP pending a related action against the alleged glass manufacturer. The court rejected the stay applications, finding no obligation to sue OEMs and their suppliers jointly, and ordered the parties to use a single workflow for future submissions.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd.vsSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
Order
Hologic, Inc.vsSiemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., and Siemens Healthcare SAS
Siemens sought an order requiring Hologic to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000 each for the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation) in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 352 431 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the request, holding that Siemens failed to meet its burden of providing evidence of the applicable foreign law and its application regarding enforcement of cost orders in Massachusetts, USA, where Hologic is domiciled.
POSITEC Germany GmbHvsHusqvarna AB
POSITEC Germany GmbH, the defendant in a patent infringement action brought by Husqvarna AB before the Local Division Düsseldorf, applied to change the language of the proceedings from German to English (the language in which EP 3978304 was granted). Husqvarna opposed the application, arguing that POSITEC, as a German company operating the EMEA headquarters, should be able to handle proceedings in German. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that the position of the defendant prevailed in the balancing of interests.
Promosome LLCvsBioNTech SE and Others (Pfizer and Others)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant Promosome LLC proposed significantly lower amounts. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly, rejecting the request for a default decision as premature.
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.