Short Summary
Unified Patent Court decision.
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 SES-imagotag SA vs Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd. Et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KGvsBeijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd., Roborock Germany GmbH, and Roborock International B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 030 943. The defendants requested extensions of deadlines for filing their opposition, statement of defense, and counterclaim for revocation, with the claimant's consent. The presiding judge granted the extensions, setting the opposition deadline to August 26, 2025, and the defense/counterclaim deadlines to October 27, 2025.
NJOY Netherlands BVvsVMR Products LLC
Unified Patent Court decision.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SLvsSun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Vivo's request for a stay of first instance proceedings pending its appeal against orders of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Vivo's preliminary objections. The preliminary objections challenged the UPC's jurisdiction to determine FRAND license terms. The Court held that the unprecedented nature of the jurisdictional question and the costs of preparing a defence did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, and that Vivo's interest in avoiding costs did not outweigh Sun Patent Trust's interest in obtaining a decision without unnecessary delay.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsXiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against several Xiaomi entities, including Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. (based in China), and Xiaomi H.K. Limited (based in Hong Kong). Panasonic sought to serve these Asian Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, a sister company within the same corporate group. The Court of Appeal dismissed Panasonic's appeal, holding that a defendant company in China or Hong Kong cannot be served through a group company in a contracting member state without further justification, and that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention must generally be made before alternative service methods can be employed.
Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc.vsNagravision Sàrl
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an application under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action. The Pinterest defendants sought the change on grounds of fairness, arguing English was their common working language and the language of the patent. Nagravision opposed, citing its Swiss domicile and Pinterest's German market activity. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the proceedings to be conducted in English without specific translation arrangements.
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.