TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Sioen NV

SSAB Europe Oy & SSAB Swedish Steel GmbHvsTiroler Rohre GmbH

This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning reimbursement of costs following withdrawal of an application for interim measures. The applicants (SSAB entities) sought reimbursement of €91,568.76, while the respondent (Tiroler Rohre GmbH) argued the costs were excessive. The court partially upheld the applicants' claim, reducing certain time entries and ordering the respondent to pay €84,033.76 by March 15, 2025.

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vsAndreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.

The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.

Versah LLCvsArgimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez

Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning European Patent EP 2 919 672 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and both parties consented to the withdrawal and to a partial refund of court fees. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff (EUR 6,600).

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsTP-Link Systems Inc. and Others (Netgear Deutschland GmbH and Others as Respondents before Court of First Instance)

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Huawei's appeals against an order of the Local Chamber Munich granting TP-Link access to certain redacted documents filed in infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321. The court held that TP-Link had a legitimate interest in accessing the documents because Huawei was suing TP-Link for infringement of the same patent, and that Huawei failed to comply with the procedural requirements for claiming confidentiality under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure.

TRUMPF Laser UK LimitedvsIPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG

TRUMPF Laser UK Limited sued IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG before the Local Chamber Mannheim for infringement of European Patent EP 2 951 625, which relates to an optical apparatus for combining laser light. The dispute concerned IPG's 'YLS-AMB' series fiber lasers (two-beam lasers with adjustable mode beam capability). The court found infringement, rejected IPG's counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, provisional damages of €115,000, and a declaration of liability for further damages.