Mannheim (DE) Local Division
158 cases · page 1 of 6
Showing 1–29Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a dispute over court fees related to counterclaims for revocation. The claimant, Irdeto B.V., initiated an infringement action against several defendants, including SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. The core issue was whether Defendant 1 could use the fee paid by Defendants 2-4 when submitting its own counterclaim later. The Court ruled that because Defendant 1's submission constituted a separate action/counterclaim in time, it must pay a distinct court fee.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim found IPG Laser GmbH liable for infringing TRUMPF Laser UK Limited's patent covering advanced fiber laser technology with adjustable beam profiles (YLS-AMB series). The court granted an injunction and established liability for damages dating back to December 2021. While the infringement claim was successful, the respondent's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH; Hisense Europe Holding GmbH; TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG; TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH; TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o.; TCL Belgium, SA
In this complex UPC case involving Corning Incorporated against multiple defendants, the Court of First Instance permitted a partial withdrawal of the infringement action. The claimant agreed to close the proceedings against two specific defendants (Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and Hisense Europe Holding GmbH), while the main suit continued against the remaining TCL entities. Concurrently, the counterclaim for revocation filed by these same parties was also withdrawn, leading to a proportional reimbursement of court fees.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V., Solvest Participatie V B.V., Solvest Participatie VI B.V., Solvest Participatie VII B.V., Solvink B.V., De Kleine Beuk B.V., Hemtech d.o.o.
This procedural order addressed the defendants' application for a panel review against the rejection of their preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and competence. The Court upheld the initial finding that Honeywell had sufficiently asserted infringement within Germany to maintain the case before the Mannheim Local Division. While the defendants argued for narrow interpretation of UPC jurisdiction, the court clarified that the merits of the infringement claim would be decided later, allowing the case to proceed.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a second application for penalties during ongoing enforcement proceedings concerning EP 3 511 174. The Claimant, Fujifilm, successfully argued that Kodak and its subsidiaries had failed to fully comply with previous court orders regarding destruction and recall of infringing products. The Court found the defendants' disclosures were incomplete and lacked necessary detail, justifying the continuation of penalty measures. While the request for penalty reduction was rejected, leave to appeal was granted, highlighting the evolving nature of enforcement jurisprudence under the UPC.
InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS v.Amazon.com, Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance in Mannheim addressed a request by Amazon to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court ruled in favor of Amazon, citing principles of fairness and efficiency under Article 49(5) UPCA. This decision highlights the practical application of balancing procedural rights against the needs of international parties in complex patent litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.HMD Global Oy
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim established a comprehensive confidentiality regime for ongoing FRAND negotiations between Huawei and HMD Global. The court recognized that details of confidential license discussions require protection under Rule 262A RoP, extending this shield to future submissions. This order is significant as it provides clear legal certainty regarding the handling of sensitive commercial data within UPC proceedings, balancing the need for transparency with the necessity of protecting proprietary information.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
This UPC CFI order addressed procedural disputes between ZTE and Samsung concerning an infringement action related to EP 3 905 730. The court closed the written procedure but deferred a decision on whether ZTE's late submissions were relevant, requiring analysis after the oral hearing. Crucially, while rejecting Samsung’s request for further written pleadings, the court granted provisional access to confidential license agreement information under strict confidentiality terms (R. 262A RoP), balancing procedural fairness with trade secret protection.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its infringement action against multiple defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd. The court formally closed the proceedings based on the mutual agreement of the represented parties. While the core dispute was settled by withdrawal, the claimant secured a partial reimbursement of court fees (EUR 11,400) under specific UPC Rules of Procedure.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its infringement action against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and several other defendants concerning EP 2 645 714. The court formally closed the proceedings based on the parties' mutual agreement. While the core dispute was settled, the ruling confirmed that all involved parties would bear their own costs, though NEC received a partial reimbursement of its court fees.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
In a case involving Huawei and several mobile technology manufacturers, the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Mannheim permitted the claimant to withdraw its infringement action. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to settle or abandon litigation by mutual consent. The court formally closed the proceedings while granting the claimant reimbursement for a portion of the incurred court fees.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed requests from Samsung (Defendants) to introduce new evidence and pleadings related to ongoing license negotiations and third-party agreements. The Court dismissed the broad requests for further written submissions and production orders, citing concerns over 'ping-pong' effects and the timing of the evidence. However, recognizing the dynamic nature of FRAND licensing, the Court granted a limited window for parties to submit briefs on new developments before the oral hearing, ensuring that all relevant facts can be considered during the merits phase.
Sun Patent Trust v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
In a procedural ruling from the Mannheim Local Court, Sun Patent Trust withdrew its infringement claim against multiple defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings. The parties reached an agreement regarding the termination of the case and cost allocation. While the core dispute was dropped, the court confirmed the withdrawal and ordered a partial refund of the initial court fees to the claimant.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
In a significant ruling concerning SEP licensing and anti-suit injunctions, the UPC Local Division Mannheim confirmed an order preventing Amazon from pursuing contractual claims in UK courts. The applicants (InterDigital) successfully defended their attempt to enforce measures designed to ensure that patent infringement proceedings before the UPC are not undermined by external legal actions. This decision reinforces the UPC's jurisdiction and its ability to manage complex cross-border disputes involving standard-setting organizations.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In a significant decision for cybersecurity IP, the UPC Local Division Mannheim revoked European Patent EP 3 652 914 B1. The patent, which covered methods for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows using machine learning and threat logs, was invalidated due to lack of inventive step in its amended claims. This revocation led directly to the dismissal of the concurrent infringement action brought by Centripetal Ltd. against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., highlighting the critical interplay between validity challenges and enforcement actions within the UPC framework.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
Polidoro S.p.a. successfully sued Bekaert Combustion Technology for infringing its patent covering a specific type of premixed burner used in condensation boilers. The UPC Local Division Mannheim found infringement, leading to the granting of cease and desist orders against the Defendants across several UPCA member states. Although the initial claims were successful, the court also dismissed the counterclaim filed by the Defendants seeking revocation of the patent. This case highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where infringement can be established while a revocation defense is simultaneously rejected.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the Local Division Mannheim rejected Centripetal Limited's attempt to reopen an oral hearing and compel Defendants (Keysight Technologies) to provide source code. The Court emphasized that reopening hearings is a rare exception, not a mechanism for introducing new infringement arguments after proceedings have closed. The decision underscores the strict procedural discipline within the UPC, requiring claimants to raise all substantive issues during the written phase.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In a significant decision, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed Centripetal Limited's infringement action against Keysight Technologies regarding its patent on efficient network protection. The Court found that the Defendants' products did not infringe the claims of EP 3 821 580 B1. This ruling underscores the high burden of proof required in UPC infringement cases, particularly when dealing with complex technical systems and alternative claim interpretations.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
This Local Division Mannheim decision addressed procedural requests regarding the access and transcription of an oral hearing in a dispute between InterDigital and Amazon. The Court partially granted the defendants' request, allowing them to listen to the confidential audio recording at another UPC location. However, the core request for a complete, independently produced transcript was rejected. The ruling emphasizes the strict interpretation of procedural rules (R. 115 RoP) regarding hearing records, balancing the need for party access against maintaining confidentiality and preventing misuse outside the UPC framework.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Blankenhorn GmbH
This UPC Local Chamber decision in Mannheim concerns a cost determination procedure related to EP 4 001 835. The case was resolved not through judicial ruling but because the claimant and respondent reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the court accepted the withdrawal of the request and terminated the costs proceedings.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al.
Nokia sued the Geely group (including brands like Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart) for infringing a patent related to efficient resource allocation in mobile communication systems. The court addressed the complex issue of jurisdiction over multiple corporate entities within a large group structure. By upholding the unified action under Article 33(1)(b), the Mannheim Local Court ensured procedural efficiency, allowing Nokia's claim against all subsidiaries to proceed simultaneously.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V., Solvest Participatie V B.V., Solvest Participatie VI B.V., Solvest Participatie VII B.V., Solvink B.V., De Kleine Beuk B.V., Hemtech d.o.o.
In this preliminary objection case, Honeywell challenged jurisdictional and competence arguments raised by multiple defendants against its infringement suit concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Local Division Mannheim rejected all objections, clarifying key aspects of UPC jurisdiction. The court held that the requirements for local division competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA are met without needing an extra 'connection,' and affirmed that liability can extend to instigators even if they are not domiciled in the EU.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a procedural decision before the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC, Huawei Technologies withdrew its infringement claim against MediaTek. Concurrently, MediaTek's subsidiary also withdrew its counterclaim for revocation of the patent EP 3 567 731. The court formally accepted both withdrawals and declared the proceedings terminated. While no substantive judgment was reached on infringement or validity, the decision provided clarity on procedural matters, including the partial reimbursement of court fees.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation
In this UPC case, Total Semiconductor sued Texas Instruments for infringing a patent related to intelligent interrupt distribution in multiprocessor systems. The court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. While the decision contained important procedural rulings regarding how claimants must substantiate disputed features and limitations on late amendments during oral hearings, it did not reach a definitive finding of infringement or validity.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed requests for partial withdrawal of an infringement action (UPC_CFI_819/2024) concerning EP 3 296 274. The Claimant successfully sought to withdraw the action against Defendants 7 through 9, and these defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This decision allowed the main infringement proceedings to continue against the remaining parties (Defendants 1-6), while formally closing the dispute with Defendants 7-9.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this provisional measures case, Centripetal Limited sought a Saisie order to monitor Palo Alto Networks' network security solution for potential infringement of EP 3 281 580. Although the Court of Appeal had previously allowed an ex-parte hearing and referred the matter back, the CFI ultimately revoked the Saisie order and rejected the application for preserving evidence. The court emphasized its right to review provisional measures based on new facts, even after a referral from the CoA.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request for drastic penalties following an attempted evidence seizure (Saisie). The court confirmed that while the Applicant sought monitoring of Palo Alto Networks' network security solution, the Defendant was not found to be in breach. The core legal principle established is that inspection orders are strictly limited to what exists at the specified premises; they cannot compel a defendant to actively set up or procure non-present systems or documentation.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully pursued an infringement action against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK regarding the juice extractor patent EP 2 028 981. The Local Division Mannheim granted injunctive relief for specific national parts of the patent, finding that the Defendants' slow juicers infringed the claims. This decision is significant as it reinforces the enforcement capabilities of the UPC in complex mechanical product infringement cases.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
In this UPC case, Hurom sued NUC Electronics regarding the alleged infringement of a patent covering a specific type of juice extractor. The proceedings were separated due to the pending ECJ decision on related matters. Ultimately, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed the action for the separated part, citing that the dispute was minor in scope and focused primarily on damages rather than immediate market injunctions.
Robert Bosch GmbH v.Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG
In this UPC case, Robert Bosch GmbH sued Grizzly Tools and related entities for infringement of EP 3 030 383 across multiple EU states, including non-EPCU members like Poland, Spain, and the UK. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction over these foreign territories. The Mannheim Local Division decisively rejected these objections, affirming that the UPC possesses international competence to handle claims related to non-EPCU member states, consistent with recent CJEU jurisprudence (BSH Hausgeräte). This ruling reinforces the broad jurisdictional reach of the unified patent system.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.