View all cases
UPC CFI 2280/2025
Dec 31, 2025·EP3878161 · INTELLIGENT, DECENTRALIZED AND AUTONOMOUS MARKETPLACE FOR DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING AND STORAGE
- Case details
- StatusWritten PhaseActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- IAGON LTDOperating co.
Representatives- Phillip Rektorschek
- Jan Phillip Rektorschek-PENTRAC Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB
- Tobias Baus-PENTRAC Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB
Respondents- INFLUX TECHNOLOGIES USA LLCOperating co.
- Influx Technologies LimitedOperating co.
- Name withheld (GDPR)
Representatives- Sebastian Ochs-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication · Computer technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Sep 2, 2026
- EPO Opposition
- Piller, FrankAdmissible2024-02-28
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Matthias Zigann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Daniel Severinsson | — | Locked |
| Judge Tobias Pichlmaier | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Andrea Perronace | — | Locked |
At the UPC: IAGON LTD (2 cases)·INFLUX TECHNOLOGIES USA LLC (2 cases)
Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patentThis dispute contains 1 other proceedings
Decisions
- 2026-09-02InfringementPublic
Summary: Munich Local Division procedural order of the judge-rapporteur (2 Sep 2026) in IAGON LTD v Influx Technologies USA LLC, Influx Technologies Limited and two natural persons (EP 3 878 161 B1): the defendants' request that the UAE-seated claimant provide security for costs of EUR 112,000 (R. 158 RoP) is rejected, because the MiCA white paper shows funding for 36 months and no liabilities, the affiliate's 2022 distress is outdated, and no concrete enforcement difficulty in the UAE was shown. Counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_3018/2026 noted.
Show the legal issues (3)
- R. 158 RoP / Art. 69(4) UPCA security for costs: burden on the applicant, financial position and enforceability (Syntorr v Arthrex, Amycel, Chint v Jingao)
- registered office outside the EU/EEA not sufficient in itself
- MiCA white paper as evidence of financial standing
Documents
Show all 114 documents| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Order | 2026-09-09 | Public |
| Order | 2026-09-08 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-09-08 | Not public |
| Publication of order | 2026-09-02 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-09-02 | Public |
| Order | 2026-09-02 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-09-02 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-08-31 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-08-31 | Not public |
| Document Claimant | 2026-08-31 | Not public |