Executive Summary
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving major mobile technology players. The Court granted the request to switch from German to English, aligning with the patent's granted language. This ruling emphasizes that fairness and the operational realities of multinational defendants—who communicate internationally in English—must be weighed heavily against local court preferences.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court ruled that when balancing the interests of parties regarding procedural language, the need to accommodate multinational companies (especially those with global operations and communication in English) outweighs the default local division language. The change to the patent's granted language (English) was deemed necessary for fairness, despite the Claimant's preference.
Practitioner Note
This decision 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
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc.vsKoninklijke Philips N.V.; Philips RS North America LLC; Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case concerning advanced brain monitoring technology, the claimant sought permission to amend its statement of claim to reflect a newer version (B2) of the patent instead of the original version (B1). The Court of First Instance dismissed the application for amendment. However, recognizing the technical reality that the B2 version was retroactively valid from the grant date, the court admitted the revised pleading into the case file, ensuring the proceedings proceed on the correct legal basis.
Cilag GmbH InternationalvsRiVOLUTiON GmbH
This UPC decision is a procedural order concerning the logistics of an upcoming oral hearing in the Munich Local Division. Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC requested permission to use private interpreters due to facility limitations, which the Court partially granted. This ruling highlights the court's flexibility in accommodating parties' needs while maintaining procedural integrity.
Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Europe GmbH
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully pursued an infringement action against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK regarding the juice extractor patent EP 2 028 981. The Local Division Mannheim granted injunctive relief for specific national parts of the patent, finding that the Defendants' slow juicers infringed the claims. This decision is significant as it reinforces the enforcement capabilities of the UPC in complex mechanical product infringement cases.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.vsAiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In this procedural order concerning a solar technology patent, the UPC Local Division addressed a request for security of legal costs. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, ordering the Claimant to provide EUR 100,000 in security. This decision reinforces the principle that when multiple parties are involved, the determination of cost ceilings must consider the group's overall interest rather than individual liability shares.
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsNetgear Deutschland GmbH; Netgear Inc.; Netgear International Limited
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.
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.