Short Summary
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, which relates to a device and method for measuring the straightness of rod-shaped workpieces. Following the complete revocation of the patent by the EPO Board of Appeal on July 4, 2024, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action under Rule 265 RoP and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The defendant sought a declaration that the revocation counterclaim had become moot under Rule 360 RoP and also requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees.
Detailed Summary
The plaintiff, MSG Maschinenbau GmbH, is the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, which concerns a device and method for measuring the straightness of rod-shaped workpieces. The defendant, EJP Maschinen GmbH, manufactures, offers, and distributes in Germany devices for measuring the straightness of rod-shaped products under the designations "Straightness Control Type TQC" (accused embodiment 1) and "Total Quality Control Type TQC 2.0" (accused embodiment 2). The plaintiff filed an infringement action seeking injunctive relief, information, disclosure of accounts, destruction, recall, cost coverage for publication of the judgment, and damages or a determination of damages. The defendant denied infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent, to which the plaintiff responded with auxiliary requests for amendment of the patent.
The EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in its entirety during oral proceedings on July 4, 2024 (case T-0367/23-3.4.02). Following this legally effective revocation, the plaintiff considered its infringement action to have lost its basis and sought to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265.1 RoP. Since the written proceedings had not yet been concluded, the plaintiff additionally sought reimbursement of 60% of the court fees pursuant to Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP. In the event that the defendant did not withdraw the revocation counterclaim, the plaintiff declared its consent to a declaration of mootness under Rule 360 RoP. The defendant stated that it did not assert a legitimate interest within the meaning of Rule 265.1 sentence 3 RoP. Regarding the revocation counterclaim, the defendant sought a declaration under Rule 360 RoP that the counterclaim had become moot due to the revocation of the patent. The defendant also sought reimbursement of 60% of the court fees for the counterclaim pursuant to Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP and Rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP applied analogously.
& Analysis: The court addressed the procedural consequences of the patent's revocation by the EPO Board of Appeal. The withdrawal of the infringement action under Rule 265 RoP and the request for a declaration of mootness regarding the revocation counterclaim under Rule 360 RoP were both grounded in the fact that the patent had been revoked in its entirety, eliminating the legal basis for both proceedings. The reimbursement requests for 60% of the court fees were based on the fact that the written proceedings had not yet been concluded.
Final Order & Ruling: The court was asked to grant the withdrawal of the infringement action under Rule 265 RoP, order reimbursement of court fees in the amount of 60%, and address the defendant's requests regarding the revocation counterclaim, including the declaration of mootness and reimbursement of court fees.
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 MSG Maschinenbau GmbH vs EJP Maschinen GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.