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
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524, and the Vivo defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. After the parties reached a settlement agreement, both sides filed withdrawal applications pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure on 13 August 2026. The Paris Local Division permitted the withdrawal of both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, closed the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna Netherlands B.V. et. al
This is a Rule 105.5 procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur following an interim conference in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The claimant, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, asserts European Patent EP2590626 B1 against fifteen Moderna entities across multiple European jurisdictions. The interim conference was held online on 11 June 2026 to streamline and prepare the proceedings for the upcoming oral hearing, addressing topics suggested by both the Court and the parties.
Occlutech GmbHvsLepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 387 951 B1 covering a braided implantable occlusion device, sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities for alleged infringement with their 'MemoCarna ASD' and 'MemoCarna VSD' devices. The Local Division Hamburg held that the Defendants' recent CE-mark approval, combined with their public marketing activities and trade fair participation, established imminent infringement and territorial jurisdiction in Germany. The court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, or using the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland, with a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.vsAmgen, Inc.
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the date of service of a Statement of claim and the extension of procedural deadlines. The appellants (Sanofi entities and Regeneron) challenged a procedural order of the Munich Local Division that had rejected their request to recalculate the deadlines for lodging a Preliminary objection and Statement of defense based on the later availability of Annexes. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that while a Statement of claim without Annexes can be validly served under Rule 271 RoP, non-compliance with Rule 13.2 RoP (requiring simultaneous upload of Annexes) constitutes a reasoned request for extension of the terms under Rules 19.1 and 23 RoP.
Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., Belkin LimitedvsKoninklijke Philips N.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied Belkin's requests regarding the timing of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division in an infringement action brought by Philips concerning EP 2 867 997. The Local Division had issued a panel decision without reasons on 11 February 2026, and Belkin appealed on 13 April 2026, seeking an extension of the deadline for certain appeal requirements or, alternatively, a formal deficiency notice. The Court held that the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal had not yet begun to run because the first-instance decision lacked the required reasons.
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.