{"id":1312,"date":"2024-12-23T09:42:43","date_gmt":"2024-12-23T09:42:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/?p=1312"},"modified":"2024-12-24T06:05:32","modified_gmt":"2024-12-24T06:05:32","slug":"upc-responds-to-first-antisuit-attack-on-its-jurisdiction-with-first-anti-antisuit-injunction-against-netgear-huawei-also-gets-one-from-munich-i-regional-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/upc-responds-to-first-antisuit-attack-on-its-jurisdiction-with-first-anti-antisuit-injunction-against-netgear-huawei-also-gets-one-from-munich-i-regional-court\/","title":{"rendered":"UPC responds to first antisuit attack on its jurisdiction with first anti-antisuit injunction against Netgear; Huawei also gets one from Munich I Regional Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Context:<\/strong> Last week, the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Munich Local Division (LD) entered a final judgment, along with a permanent injunction, for Huawei and against Netgear (December 18, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>). We subsequently explained the UPC’s FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) reasoning (December 18, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>) and reported on a trial that the Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I (Munich I Regional Court) held in a parallel case (December 19, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>). Meanwhile, a U.S. court filing has brought allegations of patent hold-out to light (December 21, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What’s new:<\/strong> In response to Netgear’s recent motion for an antisuit injunction (ASI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (December 6, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>), Huawei has obtained two anti-antisuit injunctions (AASIs). On December 11, 2024, the UPC’s Munich LD entered the young judiciary’s first-ever AASI (case no. UPC_CFI_791\/2024) and the Munich I Regional Court, which has done so on a long list of prior occasions, did so as well (case no. 7 O 15249\/24). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Direct impact:<\/strong> Netgear is therefore barred from interfering with the UPC and German proceedings by means of a U.S. AASI, and (at least by the Munich decision) from obtaining an anti-anti-antisuit injunction (AAASI), meaning that Huawei is now protected not only by an AASI but also by an AAAASI. It remains to be seen whether Netgear will still try to pursue an interim-license order by the U.S. court, but that one is a long shot anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wider ramifications:<\/strong> The UPC demonstrates its determination to defend its jurisdiction against interference via foreign proceedings. In other UPC Munich news, ip fray<\/strong> has learned that Judge Tobias Pichlmaier<\/a> will now become a full-time UPC judge, and that two in every three cases filed with the Munich LD will be assigned to the division’s first panel (Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann<\/a>, Judge Tobias Pichlmaier, a third legally-qualified judge from another country and\/or a technically qualified judge to be appointed on a case-by-case basis).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the way, today is ip fray’s first anniversary<\/strong> (link to LinkedIn post<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Both AASIs were ordered ex parte<\/em> (without hearing the other side) and have meanwhile been served on Netgear. The UPC decision was made by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann in his capacity as judge-rapporteur, and the Munich I Regional Court decision by the Seventh Civil Chamber (Presiding Judge Dr. Oliver Schoen (“Sch\u00f6n” in German)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UPC decision will presumably be published in the near term. From what ip fray<\/strong> has learned, it invokes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (text<\/a>) as well as the guarantees of access to justice under national constitutions. Once the UPC has published its decision, we will analyze it and explain the reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2021, the Munich I Regional Court’s 7th Civil Chamber, which has now ruled in Huawei’s favor, granted Japanese licensing firm IP Bridge an AASI\/AAAASI against Huawei, though the company had not even brought a formal motion for an ASI (unlike Netgear now). And that was under Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, who now granted Huawei the UPC’s first-ever AASI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Item 3 of our most recent UPC Roundup<\/a> related to this dispute. We wrote that more news was expected in the weeks and months to come. We did not know yesterday that we would be able to find out about such major Huawei v. Netgear<\/em> news the very next day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Counsel for Huawei: Clifford Chance\u2019s Dr. Tobias Hessel<\/a> (lead), Thomas Misgaiski<\/a>, Lea Prehn<\/a> and Dr. Marie Gessat<\/a>; (for the FRAND part) Bird & Bird\u2019s Christian Harmsen<\/a>, Dr. Matthias Meyer<\/a> and Dr. Joerg Witting<\/a> (\u201cJ\u00f6rg\u201d in German); and Braun-Dullaeus Pannen Emmerling patent attorneys Dr. Friedrich Emmerling<\/a> and Dr. Karl-Ulrich Braun-Dullaeus<\/a>. Huawei\u2019s in-house counsel: Emil Zhang, Dylan Li, Dr. Thomas Dreiser, Liang Gao and Wanting Shao.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Counsel for Netgear: Freshfields\u2019s Dr. Stephan Dorn<\/a> (lead), Dr. Frank-Erich Hufnagel<\/a> (normally first-chair trial counsel, but not in this case), the above-mentioned Henning Gutheil and Diana Baum<\/a>, as well as Samson & Partner patent attorneys Dr. Cletus von Pichler<\/a> and Stefan Koenig<\/a> (\u201cK\u00f6nig\u201d in German). Netgear\u2019s in-house counsel: Anna Lam (Vice President, Legal).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Context: Last week, the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Munich Local Division (LD) entered a final judgment, along with a permanent injunction, for Huawei and against Netgear (December 18, 2024 ip fray article). We subsequently explained the UPC’s FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) reasoning (December 18, 2024 ip fray article) and reported on a trial that the Landgericht M\u00fcnchen…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,51,50,28,49,12,14,15,42,54,143],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1312","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-antisuit-injunctions","category-huawei","category-huawei-v-netgear","category-l-icensors-licensees","category-netgear","category-patent-litigation","category-patents","category-standard-essential-patents","category-technology-fields-markets","category-unified-patent-court","category-wifi"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1312","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1312"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1312\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1319,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1312\/revisions\/1319"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}