2025-06-13 - LD Munich - Motorola et al. v. Motorola et al. - UPC_CFI_482/2024

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_482/2024
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
Art:
Decision
Parteien:
Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC v. Headwater Research LLC

Kernaussage: The Munich Local Division (Panel 2) allowed a partial withdrawal after the fourth defendant, an Irish company, went into liquidation: the claimant withdrew the infringement action against that defendant alone and the defendant withdrew its own revocation counterclaim, each with …

2025-06-13 - LD Munich - Motorola et al. v. Motorola et al. - UPC_CFI_482/2024
🗂️Nur Fallakte
Eine Entscheidung, mehrere Aktenzeichen

Das Gericht hat diese Verfahren zusammen entschieden und dasselbe Dokument in jedem davon eingestellt. Jeder Eintrag unten ist ein eigener vollwertiger Registereintrag.

  • UPC_CFI_482/2024 (Sie lesen diesen hier) Text zuerst hier gespeichert
  • UPC_CFI_127/2024
🏛️Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division• Decision
📅2025-06-13
🔢UPC_CFI_482/2024
Parteien & Vertreter
UPC_CFI_127/2024
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Headwater Research LLC
Philipp RASTEMBORSKI
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Motorola Mobility LLC
Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC
Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
Digital River Ireland, Ltd.
Flextronics International Europe B.V.
Boris KREYE
Richard WUNDERLICH
UPC_CFI_482/2024
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
Motorola Mobility LLC
Digital River Ireland, Ltd.
Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC
Richard WUNDERLICH
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Headwater Research LLC
Philipp RASTEMBORSKI
⚖️Counter claim for revocation
🌐German
🤖🇬🇧

notable
The Munich Local Division (Panel 2) allowed a partial withdrawal after the fourth defendant, an Irish company, went into liquidation: the claimant withdrew the infringement action against that defendant alone and the defendant withdrew its own revocation counterclaim, each with the other's consent. The Division held that R. 265.1 RoP applies also where an action is withdrawn only as regards individual defendants, or where one of several claimants withdraws, and that under R. 311.3 RoP a claimant may withdraw the action against an insolvent defendant by way of R. 265 RoP, the action against the remaining defendants being unaffected. No remaining party asserted a legitimate interest in a decision within R. 265.1, third sentence, and none was apparent, all the more so given the insolvency. The cost decision required by R. 265.2(c) RoP was made of the Court's own motion, giving effect to the two parties' joint request, and the Division construed that request twice: 'the parties' means the claimant and the fourth defendant alone, so the order does not operate against the other participants, and each bearing its own costs 'in connection with its respective withdrawal' means that no cost reimbursement takes place between them at all, rather than that each bears only the costs of its own withdrawal.

Inoffiziell

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren