| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_608/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division panel reviewed the judge-rapporteur's decision to grant only 40% court fee reimbursement (rather than 60% sought by Panasonic) following settlement-based withdrawal of the infringement actions and counterclaims. |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_619/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Costs only | Munich Local Division panel order reviewing (R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier decision to refund only 40% of court fees following withdrawal of infringement actions and counterclaims (after out-of-court settlement) in patent proceedings by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi entities (UPC_CFI_220/2023) and Guangdong OPPO Mobile (UPC_CFI_221/2023) concerning EP 3 024 163. Panasonic argued a 60% refund was due. The panel confirmed the 40% refund rate, finding the withdrawals occurred after closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP). |
| 2025-02-25 | UPC_APP_516/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Settled | Munich Local Division order reviewing (under R. 333 RoP) an earlier order that granted only 40% court fee reimbursement following the parties' settlement and mutual withdrawal of infringement action and revocation counterclaims. The parties had agreed on settlement in late 2024 after intensive proceedings in a complex SEP case (OPPO vs Panasonic re EP 2 197 132). The claimant challenged the 40% reimbursement, arguing that 60% should apply, contending the case qualified as exceptional under R. 370.9(e) RoP given the extraordinary amount of work the court had performed (far above average). The order addresses what constitutes an 'exceptional case' permitting reduction of the standard fee refund schedule. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_322/2024 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | — | Settled | The Munich Local Division declared both the infringement action (by Dyson Technology Limited against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH concerning EP 2 043 492) and the defendants' counterclaim for revocation closed, following an out-of-court settlement. Dyson withdrew the infringement claim and SharkNinja withdrew the revocation counterclaim, both waiving their respective claims. Each party was ordered to receive 60% reimbursement of the relevant court fees. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_156/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division granted Chainzone Technology's application for access to the court file under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in evidence-preservation proceedings. Access was granted following SWARCO's lack of objection, noting that Chainzone had been admitted as an intervener in parallel proceedings before the Vienna Local Division. |
| 2025-02-19 | UPC_CFI_156/2024 | Munich LD | Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 | — | Procedural only | Order of the Munich Local Division (full panel) in evidence-preservation proceedings brought by SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme against Yunex GmbH concerning EP 2 643 717 (traffic signal systems). Following resolution of the evidence-preservation application, the court addressed procedural questions: (1) Rule 360 RoP applies by analogy to evidence-preservation proceedings; (2) Rule 198.1 RoP applies by analogy in cases of resolution of an evidence-preservation application; (3) costs are reserved for the main proceedings. The order also addressed standards for specific and substantiated denial of facts (Regel 171.2 and 284 RoP). |
| 2025-02-17 | UPC_APP_66551/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division rejected Meril's application for rectification of an infringement decision (ORD_598479/2023) under R. 353 RoP, finding that the alleged inaccuracies in the statement of facts did not constitute clerical errors or obvious slips warranting correction. |
| 2025-02-12 | UPC_APP_67626/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur rejected the defendants' preliminary objection (admissibility challenge under Art. 33(2) UPCA) to the infringement action filed by biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, confirming the Munich Local Division's jurisdiction over the claim and ordering that the statement of claim was validly served on 2 December 2024. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_CFI_640/2024 | Munich LD | Application For Costs | — | Costs only | Decision of the Munich Local Division on a costs assessment (Kostenfestsetzung) following withdrawal of an application for provisional measures by SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH against Tiroler Rohre GmbH after the oral hearing. The first-instance court had previously ordered Tiroler Rohre (the unsuccessful PI applicant) to bear costs including preparation of the protective brief. The costs decision addressed the reasonableness of hours billed by claimants' legal representatives, making deductions for excessive time entries across multiple tasks (protective brief, main PI proceedings, e-mail correspondence). Allowable costs were calculated for one attorney-at-law, one patent attorney, and a second patent attorney. |
| 2025-02-08 | UPC_APP_1202/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Munich Local Division on an application by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of license negotiation information in infringement proceedings by Motorola Mobility LLC concerning EP 3 780 758. The order addresses the scope of access to FRAND negotiation information, in particular whether Lenovo entities should be included in the access circle. |
| 2025-02-05 | UPC_APP_3212/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division allowed Ericsson's preliminary objection against Motorola Mobility LLC's counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758, rejecting the counterclaim as inadmissible because the same action between the same parties on the same patent had already been brought before the same division, which is prohibited under Art. 33(2) UPCA by analogy. |
| 2025-02-05 | UPC_APP_368/2025 | Munich LD | Generic application | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division allowed a preliminary objection raised by Ericsson against Motorola's counterclaim for revocation, holding that a preliminary objection can be raised against a counterclaim for revocation and that Art. 33(2) UPCA applies when the same parties bring the same action twice before the same division. |
| 2025-01-27 | ORD_4350/2025 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division (27 January 2025) procedural order deciding that the panel will hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, and requesting assignment of a technically qualified judge. |
| 2025-01-27 | UPC_CFI_302/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Munich Local Division dated 27 January 2025 issued by the judge-rapporteur setting the timetable for infringement proceedings brought by Lenovo (Singapore) against ASUSTek Computer Inc. and related entities regarding EP 3 682 587. The order schedules an interim conference via videoconference on 25 September 2025 and an oral hearing in person in Munich on 19 November 2025. |
| 2025-01-27 | UPC_CFI_244/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ordered a small company (claimant in infringement proceedings, Snowpixie Co., Ltd.) to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP based on its operating losses and insufficient assets. The court reduced the security amount to reflect equity principles ensuring effective access to justice. The court also denied legal aid (Prozesskostenhilfe) to the claimant, finding it had sufficient resources given it was supported by a litigation funder. |
| 2025-01-27 | UPC_CFI_244/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Procedural order requiring SnowPixie Co., Ltd. (defendant/applicant) to provide security for costs pursuant to Rule 158 RoP, in an amount below the EUR 260,000 demanded by the opposing party (claimant), taking into account SnowPixie's status as a small enterprise and equity considerations. The application for legal aid (Prozesskostenhilfe) was rejected. |
| 2025-01-27 | UPC_CFI_52/2023 | Munich LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order (in German) granting patent attorney Christian Läufer of Fuchs Patentanwälte access to the written submissions and exhibits of the counterclaim for revocation proceedings (CC_581177/2023) in the case of Avago Technologies v Tesla, for professional/educational purposes. Neither party opposed. Access limited to the revocation counterclaim workflow. |
| 2025-01-21 | UPC_APP_64021/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Munich held that where formal service of the provisional measures application under R.274 RoP was impossible, a subsequent decision by default need not be re-attempted under R.274 before proceeding to an order under R.275.2 RoP, in order to preserve the right to effective judicial protection. |
| 2025-01-21 | UPC_APP_64978/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division order on service of a decision by default on a Chinese defendant (Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology) in provisional measures proceedings brought by air up group GmbH. Service under R. 274 RoP via the Hague Service Convention through Chinese authorities had failed after more than six months (Chinese authority seriously and definitively refusing to process the service). The court held that (1) service rules must be interpreted in accordance with effective legal protection principles, so it must always be possible to establish good service under R. 275.2 RoP; (2) where R. 274 service has failed for the original application, there is no need to attempt R. 274 service again for the subsequent default decision before ordering alternative service under R. 275.2 RoP. |
| 2025-01-14 | UPC_CFI_145/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Procedural order from Munich Local Division dated 14 January 2025 regarding R. 262A RoP confidentiality applications filed by defendants (Accord Healthcare, Stada, Dr. Reddy's, Zentiva) in Sanofi's infringement actions concerning EP 2 493 466. The order defines which representative and company personnel on each defendant's side are permitted access to unredacted versions of confidential documents produced in the proceedings. |
| 2025-01-13 | UPC_CFI_298/2023 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | — | Procedural only | Munich Local Division issued a revised order modifying a previous case management order (of 14 October 2024) to require claimant Harvard College to submit its auxiliary requests (in the application to amend the patent) within 20 days after the decision of the EPO Opposition Division, rather than at a fixed date, in light of a pending EPO opposition with oral proceedings scheduled. |
| 2025-01-10 | UPC_APP_3187/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Costs only | The Munich Local Division ruled on the costs assessment in the Edwards v Meril preliminary injunction proceedings, holding that recoverable costs and disbursements assessed in a costs determination are not subject to interest. |
| 2025-01-10 | UPC_CFI_168/2024 | Munich LD | Application Rop 265 | — | Withdrawn | Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (including patent amendment applications) were both withdrawn by mutual agreement of the parties pursuant to Rule 265 RoP. Both parties bear their own costs. 40% of court fees refunded to each party. Oral hearing dates cancelled. |
| 2025-01-09 | ORD_1358/2025 | Munich LD | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Permanent injunction | Decision by default of the Munich Local Division against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. (a Chinese company that failed to appear), granting air up group GmbH an injunction to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, using, importing or storing a drinking device infringing EP 3 655 341 (claims 1, 2, 4, 10) throughout all UPC Member States. The defendant is also ordered to pay a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day for each infringement and costs of proceedings. |
| 2025-01-09 | UPC_CFI_509/2023 | Munich LD | Decision By Default | — | Infringed | Decision by default of Munich Local Division in air up group GmbH v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co. Ltd. concerning EP 3 897 305 (drinking device with aroma). The defendant (Chinese company) failed to enter an appearance. The court found infringement and ordered: (A) cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, using, importing or storing the infringing drinking devices and aroma containers across all 17 UPC member states; (B) rendering of accounts; (C) damages; (D) recall, removal and destruction of infringing products; and penalty payments for non-compliance. |
| 2025-01-02 | ORD_48265/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ordered that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (CC_20512/2024) be heard together before the Munich Local Division, and set dates for an interim conference and oral hearing. |
| 2024-12-30 | UPC_CFI_168/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Munich Local Division issued a procedural order requesting the President of the Court of First Instance to reassign a new technically qualified judge to the panel, following the resignation of the previously assigned technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon. |
| 2024-12-18 | UPC_CFI_390/2023 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Costs only | Order imposing penalty payments of EUR 46,000 against Belkin companies for non-compliance with the court's disclosure order (accounting for infringement) in Philips v Belkin. The penalty ran at EUR 500/day for 26 days. Remaining requests by Philips were rejected. Philips bears 25% of costs; Belkin bears 75%. |
| 2024-12-09 | UPC_APP_64018/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Munich held that R.275.1 RoP requires an attempt at alternative service even when formal service under the Hague Convention has been seriously and definitively refused, but that alternative service can be dispensed with only if legally and factually impossible; since no alternative was available, the court was unable to order good service under R.275.2 without first exhausting other options. |
| 2024-12-09 | UPC_APP_64018/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Duplicate document of the same order issued on 9 December 2024 by the Local Division Munich concerning alternative service: the court held that alternative service must be attempted before resorting to R.275.2 RoP, unless no legally and factually possible alternative exists. |
| 2024-12-09 | UPC_CFI_509/2023 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Munich Local Division held that steps already taken to bring a request for preliminary injunction to defendant's attention constituted good service under R.275.2 RoP, after service via Chinese authorities had failed or been seriously delayed for more than six months. The order established service rules when Hague Convention service fails. |
| 2024-12-02 | UPC_CFI_114/2024 | Munich LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order (in German) addressing multiple applications in the infringement action by Heraeus Electronics against Vibrantz GmbH (EP 3 215 288, metal sintering preparation). The panel reviewed: (1) rejection of amendment to include indirect infringement of process claim; (2) amendment to include Romania; (3) Vibrantz's application to expand invalidity counterclaim to Romania; (4) replacement of counter-defendant in revocation counterclaim; and (5) various other claimant applications. |
| 2024-11-15 | UPC_APP_57746/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_15/2023) rejecting Meril's application to request information from the European Commission regarding antitrust investigations into Edwards Lifesciences' patent filing and litigation strategy. The Court declined to exercise its discretion to seek such information and denied Meril's request to reopen the oral procedure. |
| 2024-11-15 | UPC_APP_56354/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from Munich Local Division (full panel) in the infringement proceedings of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. concerning EP 3 646 825. Defendants requested the court to ask the European Commission for information about antitrust investigations against Edwards. The panel declined the request at this stage as premature and disproportionate, noting that the merits (infringement and validity) would be assessed at the oral hearing first. |
| 2024-11-15 | UPC_APP_60393/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in the infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (UPC_CFI_15/2023, EP 3 646 825). The defendants' applications to request information from the European Commission about antitrust investigations involving Edwards were denied. The Court declined to approach the European Commission as this was neither ordered by the Court of its own motion nor within the procedural framework for the specific oral hearing. |
| 2024-11-14 | UPC_APP_43938/2024 | Munich LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_114/2024 and UPC_CFI_448/2024) on Vibrantz's application for confidentiality protection under R. 262A RoP in infringement proceedings by Heraeus Electronics concerning EP 3 215 288. The full panel (including technically qualified judge) addressed the composition of the confidential club, the scope of protected information, and clarifications on which paragraphs of the statement of defence were subject to the confidentiality regime. |
| 2024-10-24 | UPC_APP_33127/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Withdrawn | Munich Local Division decision following the applicant Tiroler Rohre GmbH's withdrawal of an application for provisional measures (R. 265 RoP) after the oral hearing and after the court had indicated concerns about granting the measures. The court dismissed the respondents' (SSAB) opposition to the withdrawal, holding that a legitimate interest in obtaining a substantive decision does not arise merely because the respondents incurred costs defending against the application, even where the applicant has announced forthcoming main proceedings on the same subject matter. The court also declined to order a preliminary costs decision in favour of respondents following withdrawal. |
| 2024-10-11 | UPC_APP_3393/2024 | Munich LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Costs only | The Munich Local Division issued a costs assessment order following provisional measures proceedings, determining recoverable legal costs for Hanshow's four defendant entities, finding a reasonable time expenditure of up to 150 hours per attorney and 40 hours per patent attorney, resulting in total assessed costs of approximately EUR 154,400. |
| 2024-10-02 | UPC_CFI_54/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order on Samsung Electronics entities' application for security for costs (Rule 158 RoP) against Claimant Headwater Research LLC, a US-based patent assertion entity. Applying the CoA standard that the claimant's financial position must give rise to legitimate and real concern about recoverability of a potential cost order, the court assessed whether EUR 200,000 security was appropriate. |
| 2024-09-13 | ACT_583273/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | Munich Local Division found Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited liable for infringement of Philips' EP 2 867 997 B1 (wireless power transfer technology) and dismissed the counterclaims for revocation. An injunction was granted against Belkin's infringing acts outside Germany (German acts excluded due to opt-out/national proceedings). Defendants were ordered to provide information, recall products, pay EUR 119,000 interim damages, and cover approximately 5/6 of costs. The revocation counterclaims were dismissed. (German territorial acts were carved out from the injunction as a separate matter.) |
| 2024-09-02 | UPC_APP_33757/2024 | Munich LD | Application Rop305 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division considered Panasonic's application to extend the infringement action to add OTECH Germany GmbH as an additional defendant, with defendants opposing the late amendment request under Rule 305 RoP. |
| 2024-08-30 | UPC_CFI_52/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | The Munich Local Division found EP 1 838 002 B1 invalid (revoked for the territory of Germany) on the counterclaims for revocation filed by Tesla, finding the patent anticipated by prior art D3. The patent amendment requests were dismissed. The infringement action was dismissed as the patent lacks validity. Avago (claimant) bears all costs. |
| 2024-08-27 | ACT_23636/2024 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | Munich Local Division granted a preliminary injunction (inter partes) against respondents ordering them to cease and desist from manufacturing, offering, placing on the market, using, exporting or possessing a herbicide composition (Kagura) infringing a patent with claims directed to a composition, across multiple UPC contracting states. The court held that for a product composition claim the applicant need only allege and prove the composition had all features of the claim; it is not required to explain why the composition had those features. Distributing infringing products outside contracting states while advertising under the same name inside creates a risk of first infringement. An actus contrarius is insufficient to eliminate such risk; a cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause is required. Respondents may revoke the injunction if applicant does not commence main proceedings within 31 calendar days. |
| 2024-08-06 | UPC_APP_25259/2024 | Munich LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from Munich Local Division (full panel) in SEP/FRAND infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 780 758. Motorola Mobility LLC (claimant) applied for leave to amend its claim to add a request for an injunction. The order addresses whether Motorola could have made the amendment earlier with reasonable diligence. Application denied: the panel found no justification for the late amendment, as the relevant circumstances had been known to Motorola since at least December 2023. No ruling on patent infringement or validity. |
| 2024-07-31 | ACT_547520/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Revoked | Munich Local Division revoked DexCom's patent EP 3 350 592 (CGM system) in its entirety on Abbott's counterclaim for revocation, and dismissed all of DexCom's infringement claims. The patent was found invalid as granted and in its auxiliary request forms (1 and 2) for lack of novelty/inventive step. DexCom was ordered to bear all costs of the proceedings. |
| 2024-07-29 | ORD_43914/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order concerning a stay of infringement proceedings in the Amgen v Sanofi/Regeneron case relating to EP3666797, in light of parallel EPO opposition proceedings and a separate revocation action filed by the defendants at the UPC Central Division. |
| 2024-07-29 | UPC_CFI_501/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | — | Procedural only | Munich Local Division issued a case management order fixing dates for the interim conference and oral hearing in this infringement action concerning heart valve technology, balancing the claimant's right to a hearing within one year of service with defendants' representative availability constraints. |
| 2024-07-11 | UPC_APP_40022/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Costs | Withdrawn | Munich Local Division accepted withdrawal of KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH's infringement action against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG (EP 3 221 117). The parties reached an out-of-court settlement notified on 9 July 2024. The hearing date of 3 September 2024 was vacated, withdrawal permitted, and proceedings declared closed. Claimant was entitled to a 20% refund of court fees under R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP as the written procedure had not yet been completed at the time of withdrawal (the oral hearing had taken place but further submissions had been ordered). |
| 2024-07-11 | UPC_CFI_181/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Settled | The Munich Local Division confirmed the withdrawal of KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH's infringement action against Troester GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 221 117, following an out-of-court settlement reached by the parties after the oral hearing of 16 April 2024. The court also ordered partial reimbursement of court fees. |
| 2024-07-10 | UPC_APP_39247/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Local Division procedural order granting OPPO's request for an extension of the deadline for filing its rejoinder (Duplik) in infringement proceedings concerning a telecommunications patent owned by Panasonic. |