Short Summary
This procedural order concerns an infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 643 717, in which the plaintiff Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. sued defendant Yunex GmbH. Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd applied to intervene in support of the defendant's request to dismiss the infringement claim. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant objected to the intervention, and the presiding judge granted the intervention application, rendering the prior invitation to intervene moot.
Detailed Summary
The proceedings concern an infringement action brought by Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H., an Austrian company, against Yunex GmbH, a German company, relating to European Patent No. 2 643 717. The action was pending before the Local Division Munich (Spruchkörper 1). On April 24, 2025, the defendant Yunex filed an invitation to intervene directed at Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd, a Chinese company. On May 16, 2025, Shenzhen Dianming filed its own application to intervene in support of the defendant's request to dismiss the infringement claim. On May 28, 2025, the plaintiff filed an application seeking an order requiring Shenzhen Dianming to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 169,000.00, either by deposit with the court or by bank guarantee.
The intervenor Shenzhen Dianming sought to join the proceedings as an intervenor supporting the defendant's position. Both the plaintiff and the defendant raised no objections to the intervention. The plaintiff additionally requested that the intervenor be ordered to provide security for the costs of the proceedings and any further costs potentially arising in connection with the infringement action, in the amount of EUR 169,000.00, to be lodged within 14 days or, alternatively, within a period set by the court.
& Analysis: The presiding judge, Dr. Matthias Zigann, acting as rapporteur, found that the intervention application was to be granted because no party had raised objections against it. Consequently, the earlier invitation to intervene filed by the defendant on April 24, 2025 had become moot and was to be rejected. With respect to the plaintiff's application for security for costs, the court did not decide the matter on the merits at this stage but instead afforded Shenzhen Dianming the opportunity to respond.
Final Order & Ruling: The court ordered that (1) the intervention application of Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd dated May 16, 2025 was granted and Shenzhen Dianming was to be treated as a party; (2) the invitation to intervene dated April 24, 2025 had become moot and was rejected; (3) Shenzhen Dianming was permitted to submit its position on the costs security application within 10 days; and (4) Shenzhen Dianming was permitted to file an intervention brief within the same 10-day period. The court further instructed the registry to list Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd as an intervenor of the defendant and to treat it as a party in all associated workflows. The order was issued in the German language and remained effective pending any review by the panel under the applicable procedural rules.
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 Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd 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.