Munich I Regional Court, Judgments of 25 September 2025 – 7 O 9383/25 and 7 O 16055/24
In two judgments dated 25 September 2025, the Munich I Regional Court ruled on the infringement of foreign national parts of a European patent. In preliminary injunction proceedings, the Court prohibited, among other things, the distribution of a pharmaceutical product in 22 EU Member States. In parallel proceedings on the merits, it granted injunctive relief covering Germany and 19 other EU Member States.
The judgments build on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) ruling in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). Particularly noteworthy are the Munich Court’s findings on the requirements for submissions concerning foreign law and the validity of the individual national parts of a European patent in cross-border infringement proceedings.
I. Background and International Jurisdiction
Both proceedings concern European patent EP 2 364 691 B1, which protects pharmaceutical formulations for the treatment of eye diseases. The claimants alleged that a biosimilar infringed the patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The accused product uses a histidine buffer instead of the sodium phosphate buffer specified in the patent claim. The Munich I Regional Court found infringement by equivalence.
The international jurisdiction of German courts over claims concerning the infringement of foreign patents is not new. Under Article 4(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, companies can be sued in the courts of the Member State in which they are domiciled, even where the alleged acts of patent infringement occurred abroad.
Difficulties could arise, however, where the defendant challenged the validity of the foreign patents. Under Article 24(4) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the courts of the respective states of protection have exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings concerning patent validity.
In its judgment of 25 February 2025 in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22), the CJEU clarified that a court hearing a patent infringement action retains jurisdiction even if the defendant raises an invalidity defence. Where appropriate, that court may stay the infringement proceedings pending a decision on validity by the competent foreign court.
The Munich I Regional Court goes a step further regarding jurisdiction. In the Court’s view, the principle of the fliegender Gerichtsstand (flexible choice of venue), established in German patent litigation, should also apply to cross-border patent infringement cases. Accordingly, companies domiciled in Germany could be sued before any of the twelve German courts designated to hear patent infringement cases, even if the alleged infringing acts occurred exclusively abroad.
Although this issue was not decisive in the cases at hand, as the Munich I Regional Court already had territorial jurisdiction on other grounds, the Court explained its position in detail. In particular, it relied on the concentration of patent litigation under Section 143(2) of the German Patent Act and the principle of effective enforcement of intellectual property rights.
II. Indicative Effect of German Patent Infringement Findings
Even where a German court has international jurisdiction, the question of patent infringement is generally governed by the law of the respective country for which protection is sought. A claimant seeking injunctive relief in numerous countries must therefore, in principle, address the legal requirements applicable in each of those countries.
The Munich I Regional Court nevertheless takes the view that a finding of patent infringement under German law has a strong indicative effect for the other contracting states of the European Patent Convention (EPC).
The Court bases this approach on Article 69 EPC and the Protocol on its Interpretation. These provisions are intended to ensure a uniform determination of the scope of protection conferred by European patents. In the Court’s view, it can therefore generally be assumed that courts in other EPC contracting states will reach the same conclusions. This should also apply to infringement by equivalence, as in the present case, even though the national standards for assessing equivalence differ in certain respects.
The Court draws specific procedural consequences from this approach. While the claimant must make sufficiently detailed submissions concerning the laws of the countries in question, it is not required to provide a separate legal opinion for each country. Instead, the defendant is expected to identify specific provisions of national law or court decisions that would justify a different assessment.
This approach may facilitate the enforcement of cross-border injunctions. At the same time, it places greater demands on the defence: According to the Munich I Regional Court, general references to differences between national legal systems are insufficient.
Whether this approach will gain wider acceptance remains uncertain. Although the EPC establishes common principles for determining the scope of patent protection, substantive patent infringement law has not been fully harmonised. The assumption that a German infringement finding should have such a far-reaching indicative effect is therefore not undisputed.
III. Patent Validity and Pan-European Preliminary Injunctions
The Munich I Regional Court also attaches particular significance to German decisions when assessing patent validity.
In the present case, the German Federal Patent Court had upheld the German part of the European patent in amended form. According to the Munich I Regional Court, this decision had a Europe-wide “lighthouse effect” (Leuchtturmcharakter). It could therefore generally be assumed that the corresponding national parts of the patent would also be upheld in the same form in other countries.
This was particularly relevant in the preliminary injunction proceedings. The Munich I Regional Court considered the Federal Patent Court’s decision sufficient to establish the patent’s validity for the purposes of interim relief. At the same time, it held that the decision triggered a fresh urgency period, including for the foreign national parts of the patent. The Court assessed the urgency requirement under German procedural law.
The Court also took a relatively flexible approach to the requirement of a threat of first infringement. Given the EU-wide marketing authorisation and the biosimilar manufacturer’s evident international distribution strategy, the patent proprietor was not required to wait until a market launch had been specifically announced in each individual country.
For patent proprietors, this makes the possibility of challenging an impending Europe-wide market launch through a single set of preliminary injunction proceedings particularly relevant.
IV. Implications and Outlook
The judgments indicate that cross-border patent infringement proceedings before German courts may once again attract greater attention.
For patent proprietors, this offers another option alongside the Unified Patent Court (UPC) for enforcing European patents through a single national court proceeding.
Patent proprietors may also benefit from Germany’s bifurcated patent litigation system. Whereas counterclaims for revocation can be heard in UPC proceedings, infringement and invalidity proceedings before German courts are generally conducted separately.
Nevertheless, the laws of the individual countries, potential foreign invalidity proceedings and questions concerning the subsequent enforcement of judgments must still be taken into account.
For defendants, the Munich Court’s approach means that defending against cross-border claims may require an early and detailed assessment of the laws of the countries concerned. Separate validity challenges in those countries may also become more important.
It remains to be seen whether the Munich I Regional Court’s approach will be adopted in all respects. In particular, its findings concerning the indicative effect of German infringement and validity decisions, as well as the extension of the flexible choice of venue, do not yet represent settled case law.
Nevertheless, the judgments give patent proprietors good reason to consider consolidated enforcement before a German patent infringement court alongside proceedings before the UPC when dealing with cross-border infringement. Conversely, companies operating internationally should take into account, when planning Europe-wide product launches, the risk of facing a single German infringement action seeking injunctive relief across numerous countries on the basis of multiple national parts of a European patent.
