MUNICH LOCAL DIVISION Trends and Developments Contributed by: Julia Traumann and Ulrich Blumenröder, Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB
After the first 18-plus months of the UPC’s oper - ation, several decisions have been issued that provide insights into the assessment of inventive step. All the decisions appeared to be an initial indication only and pointed to the UPC, unlike the EPO, requiring a “realistic starting point” in the prior art and not adhering to the concept of selecting a “closest prior art” document for the assessment of inventive step. This at least suggested that the UPC does not (strictly) apply the EPO’s PSA; the approach taken by the UPC appeared to resemble that of the German Fed - eral Court of Justice. In the judgment that led to its second Edwards Lifesciences v Meril injunction, issued on 4 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_501/2023), the Local Division Munich held that the PSA is the “official test” for determining the presence of an inventive step. The Local Division Munich found that for assessing whether an invention shall be consid - ered obvious, the PSA developed by the EPO shall primarily be applied as a tool to the extent feasible to enhance legal certainty and further align the jurisprudence of the UPC with the case law of the EPO and the boards of appeal. The aforementioned decision was a landmark ruling, subject to what the court of appeal will make of it, as the Local Division Munich, with its judicial gravitas, advocates for the PSA. It favours the PSA over, for example, the “German” approach, albeit that these two approaches are similar and very often lead to the same assess- ment results anyway. Standard-Essential Patent (SEP) Litigation: Evolving Case Law SEPs have long been a hot topic in patent law and are now attracting even more attention after the European Commission scrapped the contro - versial EU SEP Regulation in early 2025. With its
broad jurisdiction, the UPC is likely to become a major battleground for SEP disputes. The Local Division Munich is emerging as one of the key venues within the UPC – if not the key venue – for SEP disputes before the UPC. Of the three SEP cases decided by the UPC so far – with more initiated but no longer pending – two have been decided by the Local Division Munich. New cases were filed there as recently as late March 2025. In the first case, Philips v Belkin, the Local Divi - sion Munich found that Belkin had infringed a Philips patent relating to a wireless charging standard. Fair, reasonable, and non-discrimina - tory (FRAND) issues were not part of that dis - pute, unlike in the two subsequent cases. The second case, Panasonic v Oppo, was decided by the Local Division Mannheim on 22 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_210/2023). This was the first time the UPC made a substantive and comprehensive decision on FRAND. In the third case, Huawei v Netgear, the Local Division Munich issued a cross-border injunc - tion covering seven countries. In this decision, the court addressed both SEP holder and imple - menter obligations under the FRAND framework. It concluded that Netgear was an unwilling licen - see and had infringed a valid SEP. The ruling aligns in many respects with the Panasonic v Oppo decision but also introduces distinct considerations, reflecting the Local Division Munich’s own approach. In late March 2025, two lawsuits in Huawei v MediaTek were initiated before the Local Divi - sion Munich (and, from what the authors can see, also a third one before the Local Division Mannheim), further intensifying the multi-juris -
62
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook