Short Summary
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning two combined cases (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The plaintiff Snowpixie Co., Ltd. (Japan) sought extensions of deadlines for filing its reply to the infringement action and its response to the counterclaim for revocation. After the Rapporteur initially extended deadlines to December 23, 2024, the plaintiff's representative filed a further request on December 23, 2024 seeking an additional extension until December 27, 2024, citing the responsible attorney's ongoing medical treatment and inability to complete the briefs.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order concerns two combined proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The plaintiff is Snowpixie Co., Ltd., a Japanese company based in Ibaraki, Japan, represented by Preu Bohlig & Partner. The defendant is Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH, an Austrian company based in Vienna, represented by Rainer Beetz of SONN Patentanwälte. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann acting as representative of the Rapporteur.
The dispute centers on requests for extension of procedural deadlines. The plaintiff's representative initially filed a request on December 19, 2024 seeking extension of the deadlines (for the reply to the infringement action and the response to the counterclaim for revocation) from December 20, 2024 until January 3, 2025. The grounds cited were that the attorney responsible for handling both the reply in the infringement case and the response in the revocation case was involved in numerous time-sensitive urgent matters. Additionally, in November 2024, several proceedings could not be handled due to a temporary illness-related absence of a staff member, and matters at risk of becoming time-barred needed to be completed before the year-end. The requested extension would also cover year-end holidays.
& Analysis: By orders dated December 20, 2024, the Rapporteur extended the deadlines only until December 23, 2024, rejecting the further extension requests (App_67391/2024 and App_67383/2024). On December 23, 2024, at 17:54, the plaintiff's representative filed further requests (APP_67908/2024 and APP_67921/2024) seeking an additional extension until December 27, 2024. The representative argued that the responsible attorney could not finalize the briefs that day due to health reasons and needed to seek medical treatment on short notice. The attorney had been under ongoing medical treatment at a clinic in Munich and another facility, with intermittent symptoms making it uncertain when full working capacity would be restored. However, it was anticipated that the attorney would be able to complete both briefs by Friday, December 27, 2024. The representative noted that the opposing counsel had been informed of the situation in detail and that only a short extension of at most two working days was needed, which would not delay the proceedings. Despite these explanations, consent to the extension was refused without comprehensible grounds. The facts were affirmed by the attorney under professional oath. The plaintiff further argued that the extension would actually benefit the defendant/counterclaimant for revocation, as it would provide three additional full working days for upcoming deadlines (new expiration on Thursday, February 27, 2025).
Final Order & Ruling: The provided text is cut off before the full disposition of the order is revealed. The document is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued on December 24, 2024, addressing the plaintiff's request for a short extension of one to two working days to accommodate the medical circumstances of the responsible attorney and enable timely processing of the matters in favor of the plaintiff.
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 Snowpixie Co., Ltd. vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbHvsDall Energy ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Polytechnik's application for suspensive effect of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division compelling it to produce construction drawings and operation/maintenance manuals in patent infringement proceedings brought by Dall Energy concerning EP 2 334 762. The Court held that Polytechnik failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, finding that the confidentiality protections in the order were adequate and that the alleged prejudice did not meet the threshold of a breach of fundamental procedural rights.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited , Infinix Mobility Limited , Tekpoint GmbH , IRD Distribuce, S.R.O , x-kom GmbH , NTT System S.A.vsTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This case concerns appeals filed by Shenzhen Transsion and related entities against an order of the Local Division of The Hague dated 27 May 2026, which granted Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures under Rules 262A and 262.2 RoP in three related infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 2 712 236, EP 3 836 631, and EP 3 245 744 in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. The Court of First Instance had ordered a phased confidentiality regime restricting access to sensitive licensing information to external representatives and independent licensing experts, excluding in-house representatives during the first phase. Shenzhen Transsion sought leave to appeal, which was granted by the CFI on 15 June 2026, and the appeals were lodged on 24 June 2026, requesting the Court of Appeal to set aside the impugned order.
Bhagat Textile EngineersvsOerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
1 Numero di riferimento: UPC CoA_8/2025 APL_366/2025 Ordinanza della Corte d'appello del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti relativa a una istanza di svincolo della garanzia ai sensi della regola 352, paragrafo 2, del Regolamento di procedura emessa il 3 febbraio 2026 ISTANT
MediaTek Germany GmbHvsRespondent
This case concerns a request for security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. sued MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 567 731, while MediaTek Germany GmbH filed a counterclaim for revocation. MediaTek Germany GmbH sought an order requiring Huawei to post security of €239,000 within six weeks, arguing that enforcement of a cost decision against the Chinese claimant would be de facto impossible or significantly more difficult. Huawei opposed the request, contending that it has consistently met its payment obligations in prior proceedings and that the amount demanded was excessive.
ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., Ninepoint GmbHvsRespondent
This procedural order concerned a request by Defendants 2 to 6 (ASUS-related entities and Ninepoint GmbH) to extend the time period for submitting their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 849 157. The defendants argued that the time period should run from when they obtained access to the unredacted version of exhibit BB1, which contained an agreement between the Claimant and the patent's co-owner. The court granted a one-week extension, extending the deadline to 30 September 2025, finding that the extension was sufficient to compensate for the delayed access to evidence.
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.