ENDE

Account

Analytics 1Cases 1Decisions 4Judges 2Parties 0Firms

Filters

Case number

Patent number

Filing date

→

Decision date

→

Division

Language

Category

Subcategory

Substantive (main) cases only

Proceeding type

Action type

Status

Outcome

Outcome detail

Motion type

Settlement timing

Technology (L1)

Technology sector

CPC code

SEP / FRAND

Judge

Claimant

Respondent

Firm

Corporate group

Entity type

Has security order

Security status

Legal principle

temporal urgency in Munich Local Division: two months (diverging from Düsseldorf's one month)

Cites UPC case

Cites authority

Had oral hearing

Filters

Case number

Patent number

Filing date

→

Decision date

→

Division

Language

Category

Subcategory

Substantive (main) cases only

Proceeding type

Action type

Status

Outcome

Outcome detail

Motion type

Settlement timing

Technology (L1)

Technology sector

CPC code

SEP / FRAND

Judge

Claimant

Respondent

Firm

Corporate group

Entity type

Has security order

Security status

Legal principle

temporal urgency in Munich Local Division: two months (diverging from Düsseldorf's one month)

Cites UPC case

Cites authority

Had oral hearing

Parties

Filing frequency, side mix, win records, firms typically retained — by corporate group or standalone party.

Show:

Legal principletemporal urgency in Munich Local Division: two months (diverging from Düsseldorf's one month)Clear all

Top corporate groups

Combined filings across grouped entities.

Group	Total cases	Claimant-side	Respondent-side

Top standalone parties

Parties not yet rolled into a corporate group.

Party	Total cases	Claimant-side	Respondent-side
(Applicant not named in excerpt - proprietor of patent for herbicide composition)	1	1	0
(Respondents not named in excerpt - manufacturers/distributors of Kagura herbicide)	1	0	1