Executive Summary
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to withdraw its infringement claim against Netgear and simultaneously accepted the withdrawal of Netgear's counterclaim for revocation. This decision reflects a common strategic resolution in complex patent litigation, where parties opt to terminate proceedings rather than proceed to a full trial. The court formalized the termination while granting a partial refund of court fees.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court granted the applications for leave to withdraw both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim based on the parties' mutual agreement. Consequently, the related proceedings were declared terminated, although each party was responsible for its own costs.
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 Deutschland GmbH; Netgear Inc.; Netgear International Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
BF exaQC AGvsNVIDIA Corporation
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving NVIDIA and two German claimants (BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG). The defendants sought to change the court language from German to English, matching the patent grant language. However, the Court ultimately dismissed this request. The ruling emphasizes that while convenience for large corporations is a factor, the principle of ensuring fair access to justice for medium-sized enterprises must take precedence when weighing the interests of the parties.
Fujifilm CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Fujifilm successfully sued Kodak entities for infringing a patent related to lithographic printing plates in the UPC Local Division Mannheim. The court found infringement, leading to significant remedies including mandatory destruction and recall of the contested products. While Fujifilm's counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, the defendants were ordered to pay an interim award for legal costs, marking a decisive victory for the claimant.
Dolby International ABvsHP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finland Oy, HP Italy S.r.l., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD
In a procedural ruling concerning the dispute over EP 3 490 258 B1, Dolby International AB withdrew its infringement claim against various HP entities. Concurrently, the defendants successfully had their counterclaim for revocation withdrawn. The court formally terminated both proceedings based on the mutual agreement of the parties. This case highlights how strategic settlement and procedural agreements can lead to the early termination of complex UPC litigation.
SSAB Swedish Steel GmbHvsTiroler Rohre GmbH
This UPC decision concerns a cost assessment application following the withdrawal of an interim measure request. The court found the claim admissible and necessary, establishing that costs incurred by the claimant were recoverable. Although the respondent successfully argued for reductions in specific time entries due to lack of plausibility, the overall reimbursement amount was significantly upheld.
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsNetgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to withdraw its infringement claim against Netgear and permitted Netgear to withdraw their revocation counterclaims regarding EP 3 611 989. The court confirmed that withdrawal was permissible because the prior decision had not yet attained legal force. This case highlights how parties can resolve complex UPC litigation through mutual agreement, leading to a procedural dismissal of the actions.
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.