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 Koninklijke Philips N.V. vs Edrich u.a. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.vsRoche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH before the Central Division Paris concerning European Patent EP 2 196 231, relating to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. The Central Division dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as granted, after which Tandem Diabetes appealed. Following the appeal, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Court of Appeal to confirm it, which the Court did, terminating the appellate proceedings and confirming that each party bears its own costs.
La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd.vsAthena Pharmaceutiques SAS & Substipharm
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. 3 592 333 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The claimant filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to restrict access to the unredacted version of Exhibit MW21, a non-public agreement with a third party, to an 'attorneys' eyes only' confidentiality regime. The defendants sought broader access, including for their Head of Legal, Indian external legal advisers, and external experts. The Court granted a confidentiality regime but allowed access to the defendants' external representatives and two named natural persons, rejecting the requests for Indian counsel and external experts.
Dyson Technology LimitedvsSharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Chamber Munich, alleging infringement of European Patent 2 043 492 (relating to hand-held vacuum cleaners) by SharkNinja's Shark Detect Pro models. The court granted the injunction, ordering SharkNinja to cease offering and supplying the infringing models in Germany and France, subject to a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation, while requiring Dyson to initiate main proceedings within 31 calendar days or 20 working days.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG and OthersvsOna Patents SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated July 11, 2024, concerning Apple's request to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the deadline for Ona Patents SL to file its response to the appeal. The court rejected Apple's acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in expediting the proceedings did not outweigh Ona's interests in a proper proceeding. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action by Ona against Apple based on EP 2 263 098, and Apple's prior request to change the procedural language from German to English, which had been rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent EP 1 612 910 B1, which relates to a power control system for electronic circuits, alleging that Tesla's Model Y vehicles using AMD Ryzen processors infringed the patent. Tesla filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially revoked the patent in its main request but maintained it in a modified auxiliary request form, finding partial infringement and allocating costs 85% to Avago and 15% to Tesla.
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.