Short Summary
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The sole issue addressed in this order was whether proper service had been effected on Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.), which is domiciled in China. The Court held that service was validly completed on 11 May 2024, accepting the defendant's own statement as proof of service.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß of the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 6 August 2024, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 (case number UPC_CFI_498/2023). The Claimant, NEC Corporation (Japan), brought a patent infringement action against multiple defendants, including TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, and TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd. (Defendant 2, domiciled in China).
The Statement of Claim was dated 22 December 2023 and was served on Defendants 1, 3, 4, and 6 on 23 February and 23 March 2024 respectively. Defendant 2, being domiciled in China, was subject to service through the Chinese authorities. However, no proof of service from the Chinese authorities had been provided. Defendant 2 filed a preliminary objection on 11 June 2024. When questioned by the Court, Defendant 2 submitted a statement dated 30 July 2024 confirming that it had received the complaint on 11 May 2024.
The Court issued an order determining that the action was served on Defendant 2 on 11 May 2024. The Court deemed Defendant 2's statement of 30 July 2024 to constitute sufficient proof of service, eliminating the need to wait for further proof of service from the Chinese authorities. The Registry was instructed to enter 11 May 2024 as the date of service in the CMS and to record the lawyers named in the 30 July 2024 statement as representatives of Defendant 2.
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 NEC Corporation vs TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, and TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Scandit AGvsHand Held Products, Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a withdrawal request under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure. Hand Held Products, Inc. requested withdrawal of its request for interim measures regarding EP 3 866 051, and Scandit AG consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and declared the appeal proceedings terminated, finding no need for a cost decision since neither party filed a cost request.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entitiesvsSTADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
This case concerned European Patent 2,493,466, held by Sanofi SA, relating to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer. Sanofi filed infringement actions against STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva entities for marketing generic versions of its JEVTANA product, while the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs.
UERAN Technology LLCvsXiaomi Corporation a.o.
Unified Patent Court decision.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbHvsBelparts Group N.V.
This procedural order concerns a request by IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH for Belparts Group N.V. to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 500,000 under Rule 158.1 RoP in proceedings involving a revocation action, application to amend a patent, and counterclaim for infringement regarding EP3812870. IMI argued Belparts was economically vulnerable based on a 2023 loss, while Belparts countered with evidence of positive financial results, a sizable patent portfolio, and a binding assurance from its parent group company AFRISO-WERK Georg Fritz GmbH & Co. KG. The Court of First Instance dismissed the request, finding IMI failed to meet its burden of substantiation and proof.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbHvsMammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH for the release of a EUR 500,000 security deposit it had lodged with the Unified Patent Court in connection with ex parte interim measures granted against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 B1. After initially depositing the security to enable prompt enforcement, Ortovox subsequently obtained and provided a bank guarantee and sought release of the deposited amount. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the Registrar to release the deposited security, subject to the expiry of the respondents' right to seek review.
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.