Short Summary
This procedural matter concerns an application by Renault SAS for access to the court register and file of three concluded proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1, in which Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited had sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement. The original infringement action and revocation counterclaim had been terminated following withdrawal permitted by decisions dated 7 January 2025. Renault sought access to review Avago's legal and technical arguments, claim interpretation positions, validity arguments, and patent amendments, while the defendants (Tesla) consented to access to a specific list of pleadings but opposed broader disclosure.
Detailed Summary
The proceedings concern European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited had filed an infringement action against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE before the Local Chamber Munich (ACT_24735/2024, UPC_CFI_208/2024). The defendants raised invalidity objections and filed a counterclaim for revocation (CC_49779/2024, UPC_CFI_504/2024). Avago also filed an application to amend the patent (App_654111/2024, UPC_CFI_504/2024). By decisions dated 7 January 2025, the withdrawal of the main action and the counterclaim was permitted, and the proceedings were terminated. Separately, Avago had accused Renault SAS out of court of infringing the same patent. Renault, as the applicant in this procedural matter, sought access to the court register and file of the three concluded proceedings.
Renault argued that it had a legitimate interest in accessing the file to review the prior legal and technical arguments of Avago, its positions on claim interpretation, the validity of the patent, and any proposed or defended amendments. Renault further noted that the proceedings had been terminated, so the integrity of the proceedings was no longer at stake, and stated its willingness to accept appropriate redactions or confidentiality measures ordered by the court. The defendants (Tesla) did not object to granting access to a specific list of pleadings, namely the statement of claim dated 1 May 2024, the first statement of defense (technical part) dated 2 September 2024 (in redacted form), the reply (technical) dated 11 December 2024 (in redacted form), the revocation counterclaim dated 2 September 2024, and the response to the revocation counterclaim dated 11 December 2024, but opposed access going beyond these documents.
& Analysis: The presiding judge, acting as rapporteur, issued the procedural order under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure regarding the application for access to the register and file. The parties had been given the opportunity to comment on Renault's application. The order was issued by the presiding judge as rapporteur on 30 July 2025.
Final Order & Ruling: The procedural order addresses Renault's application for access to the register and file, including all written submissions and evidence in the three proceedings related to the patent in suit, while taking into account the parties' respective positions on the scope of access. The full text of the operative part of the order is partially truncated in the available record.
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 RENAULT SAS vs Respondent 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.