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
Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Germany GmbH, Moderna Norway AS, Moderna Sweden AB, ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Biotech Spain SL, Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Biotech UK LimivsRespondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 04/06/2025 APPLICANT/S – DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGSIN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 1) Moderna, Inc. 325 Binney Street - MA 02142 Cambridge
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbHvsBallinno B.V.
The judgment text is not available as the order has been temporarily removed and is to be replaced. No factual details, arguments, reasoning, or outcome can be extracted from the provided text.
Keestrack N.V.vsRespondent
Keestrack N.V., the claimant and patent holder of EP3713672, filed a request to withdraw its patent infringement action against Geha Laverman B.V. before the Local Division The Hague, with the defendant's consent. The defendant experienced technical difficulties with the digital case management system (CMS) that delayed its formal response, though it had submitted its consent by email on the original deadline. The court accepted the late CMS filing as timely given the email submission and granted the withdrawal request.
Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Hurom Co., Ltd. against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1. The Local Division Mannheim addressed the question of which substantive law applies to alleged infringing acts of traditional European bundle patents in relation to the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The court held that the UPCA substantive law applies to acts committed after 1 June 2023 and to ongoing acts that continued after that date, while substantive national laws apply to acts committed before that date. The court also ruled that the right to information under the UPCA encompasses time periods predating the entry into force of the UPCA.
Fujifilm CorporationvsRespondent
FUJIFILM Corporation requested the Mannheim Local Division to issue a warning to the Kodak defendants that non-compliance with the information orders in the judgment of 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023) concerning EP 3 511 174 would result in penalties of up to EUR 30,000 per day. The court rejected the application, holding that the panel had explicitly decided in the main decision not to set a fixed time period for information provision or a penalty amount up-front, and that such matters would be addressed in a subsequent application to impose penalties.
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.