Short Summary
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 4 108 413. The court clarified that the claimant validly chose English as the language of the proceedings by filing its statement of claim in English and designating English pursuant to Art. 49(2) UPCA, since English is the language of the patent-in-suit and the claimant alleged infringement in multiple member states.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by Judge Böttcher of the Mannheim Local Division on 30 May 2025 in case UPC_CFI_745/2024 (Application No. 63407/2024), concerning European patent EP 4 108 413. The claimant, Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH (represented by Holger Stratmann), brought a patent infringement action against the defendant, CeraCon GmbH (represented by Matthias Sonntag), alleging infringing acts in several member states to the UPCA, including Germany and Italy. The defendant is domiciled in Germany.
The core procedural dispute concerned the language of the proceedings. The claimant filed its statement of claim in English, which is the language of the patent-in-suit, and designated English as the language of the proceedings. The defendant responded to the statement of claim in English. The claimant additionally made formal requests to use English as the language of proceedings, which it characterized as a precautionary measure. The claimant specified its request as primarily an auxiliary request under Art. 49(3) UPCA and secondarily under Art. 49(5) UPCA, arguing that the defendant had at least implicitly consented to the use of English by submitting all its pleadings in English. The defendant did not comment on the matter.
The court reasoned that the claimant's requests to use English were not subject to a decision because the claimant's choice of English was already effective. By filing its statement of claim in English and designating English as the language of proceedings under Art. 49(2) UPCA, the claimant had validly chosen English. The court found this choice to be valid because English is the language of the patent-in-suit, and since the claimant alleged infringement throughout multiple relevant member states (particularly Germany and Italy), the exclusion under R. 14(b) RoP did not apply. The court further noted that the claimant could have filed the statement of claim under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA in Italy and was not limited to filing in Germany as the defendant's principal place of business.
The final order, issued for clarification purposes, determined that the claimant had validly chosen English as the language of the proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi BelgiumvsZentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, following the second interim conference in four consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants are generic pharmaceutical companies from four groups: Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva. The order addresses procedural matters including the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and rulings on the admissibility of late-filed evidence.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG a.o.vsA. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 962 668 B1. The order addresses the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, restricting access to certain unredacted documents containing trade secrets. The applicants (Roche entities) and respondents (Menarini entities) agreed on the classification of the information as confidential and on the circle of persons authorized to access it on the applicants' side.
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S), Gen, Düsseldorf, Germany and European patent attorney Jan SørensevsOmni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 2 755 901, relating to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. Hartmann Packaging A/S, the patent proprietor, brought an infringement action against Omni-Pac entities regarding 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac filed a counterclaim for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Division Düsseldorf had partially revoked the patent, upholding claim 1 only in amended form according to auxiliary request 2, while maintaining claim 6 as granted, and dismissed the infringement action. The Court of Appeal reviewed the priority claims, novelty, and inventive step issues across multiple appeal proceedings.
Syngenta LimitedvsRespondent
Syngenta Limited applied to the Local Division Munich for leave to amend its claim to extend the territorial scope of the infringement action to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom, following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (C-3999/22). Sumi Agro opposed, arguing the amendment could have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. The Court granted the application, holding that Syngenta could not reasonably have been expected to include the non-UPC territories in its original statement of claim, and adjusted the procedural timetable accordingly.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc., 5th Fl., 216 Hwangsaeul-ro Bundang-gu - 13595 - Seongnam-si,vsASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology against several ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH regarding EP 3 849 157, along with two counterclaims for revocation filed by ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer GmbH. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw the infringement action and both counterclaims for revocation without requesting a cost decision. The Local Division Mannheim permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to each party that had paid them.
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.