Executive Summary
This UPC decision addresses preliminary objections raised by both the claimant (NST) and defendants (VW/Audi, TI). The Court largely rejected the arguments that the infringement action should be dismissed as manifestly unfounded. While some jurisdictional issues were noted, the ruling prioritized case management efficiency under Art. 41.3 UPCA, ordering the partial dismissal of preliminary objections. This means the core infringement dispute will proceed to the main proceedings.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court rejected the requests to declare the action manifestly unfounded under Rule 361 RoP. While some initial jurisdictional and standing arguments raised by the defendants were considered, the overall preliminary objections were only partially dismissed, allowing the main infringement case to move forward based on efficiency principles (Art. 41.3 UPCA).
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Munich (DE) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd.vsLONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In a procedural order concerning solar technology patents, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a stay to both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision was made because the parties are actively negotiating a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding the disputed patent EP 4 372 829. The Court also ensured that if the proceedings resume, all deadlines will be reset, providing procedural certainty while allowing time for commercial resolution.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IPvsSTADAPHARM GmbH a.o.
In a significant ruling for the pharmaceutical sector, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466, which covered a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. This decision immediately dismissed the associated infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic competitors such as Stada and Dr Reddy's. The ruling underscores the vulnerability of patents, even those related to specific medical uses, when challenged successfully on grounds of invalidity.
NJOY Netherlands B.V.vsJuul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application to withdraw an appeal in a patent revocation case involving vaping technology. The court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal after NJOY consented, closing the appellate proceedings. Despite allowing the withdrawal, the court applied standard cost rules, ruling that Juul Labs, as the appellant who withdrew, was ultimately unsuccessful and must cover NJOY's legal costs for the appeal.
Ona Patents SLvsGoogle Ireland Limited
This UPC decision involved a dual action: an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. Despite the complexity of the technology—which relates to advanced location estimation using positioning-assisting signals—both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim were ultimately dismissed by the Düsseldorf Local Division. The ruling provided important procedural guidance, emphasizing that registration status is prioritized in certain UPC proceedings, while also clarifying the requirements for establishing direct infringement.
Sumi Agro LimitedvsSyngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of an application for rehearing related to EP 2 152 073. Both parties, Sumi Agro and Syngenta, jointly requested the withdrawal, leading the court to permit it under R. 265.1 RoP. While the core dispute was dropped, the Court provided clear guidance on procedural matters, specifically confirming that joint requests for withdrawal waive the need for a cost decision but do not automatically allow for fee waivers.
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.