2026-05-04 - LD Munich - Huawei v. TP-Link et al. - UPC_CFI_804/2025

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_804/2025
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
Art:
Decision
Parteien:
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-Link Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L, TP-Link Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.

Kernaussage: The Munich Local Division permitted the withdrawal of an infringement action and of the counterclaim for revocation after the parties settled, closed both proceedings, cancelled the interim conference and oral hearing already listed, and made no cost decision, neither side pursu…

2026-05-04 - LD Munich - Huawei v. TP-Link et al. - UPC_CFI_804/2025
🗂️Nur Fallakte
🏛️Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division• Decision
📅2026-05-04
🔢UPC_CFI_804/2025
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
Christian HARMSEN
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
TP-Link Systems Inc.
TP-Link Deutschland GmbH
TP-Link Enterprises France SARL
TP-Link Enterprises Netherlands B.V.
TP-Link Italia S.R.L
TP-Link Enterprises Nordic AB
Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
Klaus HAFT
⚖️Infringement
🌐English

notable
The Munich Local Division permitted the withdrawal of an infringement action and of the counterclaim for revocation after the parties settled, closed both proceedings, cancelled the interim conference and oral hearing already listed, and made no cost decision, neither side pursuing a cost claim. Both parties had applied for a 60% refund of court fees under the former Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP; the Court refunded 50% under the amended Rule, holding that the date the withdrawal application is filed decides which version applies and citing four Court of Appeal decisions to that effect. It nonetheless granted leave to appeal, recording that other first-instance decisions diverge from the Court of Appeal on this point and that the Court of Appeal should have the opportunity to consolidate the area. It also fixed the value of the counterclaim at 1.5 times the value of the infringement action as the default calculation method.

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren