View all cases
- Case details
- Status—ActionProcedural applicationCategoryOther procedural
- Parties
- Claimants
- SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Alexander Koller-NOMOS Rechtsanwälte GmbH
- Division
- Munich LD
- Judges
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringAudio-visual technology
- InstrumentsOptics
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Jul 2, 2025
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked |
| Judge Matthias Zigann | Locked |
At the UPC: SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (11 cases)·Yunex GmbH (5 cases)
Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patentThis dispute contains 4 other proceedings
UPC CFI 618/2025·UPC APP 17662/2025·UPC CFI 245/2025·UPC CFI 156/2024
4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CFI 425/2025·UPC CoA 70/2025·UPC CoA 76/2025·UPC CFI 33/2024
Decisions
- 2025-07-02
Summary: Procedural order on a security-for-costs application by claimant SWARCO FUTURIT against intervener Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. The court addressed whether an admitted intervener is subject to security-for-costs obligations under R. 158 RoP. Intervener's primary request to reject the security application was considered; a separate ruling on the merits of the security application was issued.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Security for costs against intervener (R. 158 RoP)
- Intervener treated as party (R. 315.4 RoP)
Documents
- B52FC83542D6870D0E282BE47EAC2E35_de.pdf2025-07-02DE