About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making IP Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization WIPO and Artificial Intelligence Working at WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets Future of IP WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Women Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Youth Examiners Innovation Ecosystems Economics Finance Intangible Assets Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism Music Fashion PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center World Intangible Investment Highlights WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay WIPO Wallet WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Tailored Initiatives & Projects Collaborative Forums & Dialogues Innovation, Creativity and Development Acceleration Program IP for Impact National IP & Innovation Strategies Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program IP Commercialization WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Global Forum on IP and AI AI Infrastructure Interchange AI Tools & Services Staff Positions Affiliated Personnel Positions Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

Germany

DE001-j

Back

2026 WIPO IP Judges Forum Informal Case Summary – Munich I Regional Court, Germany [2025]: Case No. 7 O 16055/24

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2026 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 8: Cross-border Aspects of IP Disputes

 

Munich I Regional Court, Germany [2025]: Case No. 7 O 16055/24

 

Date of judgment: September 25, 2025

Issuing authority: Munich I Regional Court

Level of the issuing authority: First Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)

Subject matter: Patents (Inventions)

Plaintiff/Appellant: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and others

Defendant/Respondent: Formycon AG and others

Keywords: Cross-border jurisdiction; Patent infringement; Doctrine of equivalents; Injunctive relief

 

Basic facts: The plaintiff sued the defendant, which was based in Germany, for patent infringement in Germany and 19 other European Union (EU) Member States. The alleged infringement in the other EU Member States was based on national patents in each Member State.

 

The alleged patent infringement was based on the doctrine of equivalents. It was therefore necessary to determine whether, under the substantive law of the other EU Member States, the contested embodiment would also be considered patent-infringing on the basis of the doctrine of equivalents.

 

Held: The court held that there was patent infringement in Germany and in the 19 other EU Member States.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to cross-border aspects of IP disputes: Regarding substantive law, the court assumed that the outcome would be the same in all EU Member States, in light of the common framework provided by the European Patent Convention (EPC) and Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (Enforcement Directive). The burden of proving that the law of a particular Member State would lead to a different outcome lay with the defendant.

 

Regarding jurisdiction, the court referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB, C-339-22 (February 25, 2025).

 

Relevant legislation: Articles 4(1) and 63(1) the Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012  of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; Sections 17 and 32 of Code of Civil Procedure (DE326); Section 143(2) of Patent Act (DE312)