Executive Summary
In this UPC infringement case between Huawei and Netgear, the court issued an order revoking a previous decision to appoint a translation expert. The revocation was based on the parties' mutual agreement that critical Chinese-language documents related to the patent were identical. This procedural step simplifies the ongoing litigation, allowing the case to proceed without the need for external linguistic verification.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court revoked its previous order to appoint an expert for translations because both parties confirmed that the relevant Chinese-language documentation (PrioAnm, StammAnmCN, UrAnm) concerning the patent claims were identical. This streamlines the proceedings by eliminating the need for translation verification.
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 International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd.vsAmazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. initiated an infringement lawsuit against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning the patent EP 2 402 415 B1. However, before a full hearing could take place, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently agreed to withdraw the claim. The Düsseldorf Local Division formally accepted this withdrawal, terminating the case.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.vsSTRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party intervenor (Streithelfer) when the main party withdraws their appeal. The case involved Strabag and Swarco, with Chainzone intervening to support Strabag's position regarding patent EP 2 643 717. When Strabag settled out of court and withdrew its appeal, the UPC ruled that Chainzone’s intervention became legally moot. This decision clarifies strict rules governing third-party involvement in appellate proceedings.
Occultech GmbHvsLepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A.
Occultech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical for alleged infringement of its medical device patent (EP 1 998 686 B2), specifically concerning the MemoCarna occluders. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, finding that the necessary prerequisites for an injunction were not satisfied. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain provisional measures in UPC proceedings.
HL Display ABvsBlack Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In this procedural order, HL Display AB opposed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s request to deposit physical objects related to the infringement case EP2432351. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the application. The court found that BSRP failed to provide a sufficient justification for filing these exhibits late, leading to the rejection of their procedural motion.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsTP-Link Systems Inc, TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Entreprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V, TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by TP-Link and Lianzhou to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving Huawei. The court balanced the interests of both parties, concluding that the Defendants' structural disadvantage in preparing their defense outweighed the Claimant's preference for the local language. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to procedural fairness and efficiency in complex international disputes.
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.