Mannheim (DE) Local Division
161 cases · page 1 of 6
Showing 1–29Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and others
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns whether Defendant 1 (SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.) must pay a separate court fee for its counterclaim for revocation of European Patent No. EP 2 831 787. The court held that although Defendants 2–4 had already paid a single court fee for their joint counterclaim for revocation under Rule 370.7 RoP, Defendant 1's later-filed counterclaim constitutes a separate action requiring its own fee, even though the content is identical.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited sued IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG before the Local Chamber Mannheim for infringement of European Patent EP 2 951 625, which relates to an optical apparatus for combining laser light. The dispute concerned IPG's 'YLS-AMB' series fiber lasers (two-beam lasers with adjustable mode beam capability). The court found infringement, rejected IPG's counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, provisional damages of €115,000, and a declaration of liability for further damages.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division concerned EP 3 296 274, involving an infringement action by Corning Incorporated against multiple defendants including Hisense and TCL entities, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Hisense defendants. During the interim procedure, the claimant partially withdrew the infringement action against the Hisense defendants, and the Hisense defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to each other's requests. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed against the Hisense defendants, and ordered 40% reimbursement of the counterclaim court fees to the Hisense defendants.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH , Xiaomi Technology France SAS, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. and Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB
Unified Patent Court decision.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V. et al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated an infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 2 563 695 B1 against seven defendants. The defendants filed a preliminary objection seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction/competence or transfer to The Hague Local Division. The judge-rapporteur rejected the preliminary objections, and the defendants applied for panel review under R. 333 RoP, which was also rejected, though leave to appeal was granted.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This enforcement proceeding before the Mannheim Local Division concerned FUJIFILM Corporation's second application for the imposition of penalties against three Kodak entities for non-compliance with the operative parts of the main decision of 2 April 2025 regarding EP 3 511 174. The Panel found that the Defendants had not fully complied with their obligations to render information, destroy, recall, and remove infringing products, and imposed cumulative penalties totaling 1,720,000 €, with further non-compliance penalties set at 25,000 € per day.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS
The defendants (Amazon entities) requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings concerning EP2803191. The claimant did not raise substantive objections, merely referring to its previous arguments in similar cases. The President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language of proceedings changed to English, the language in which the patent was granted.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.HMD Global Oy
An order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 667 981, establishing a general confidentiality regime under Rule 262A RoP for FRAND licence negotiations between the parties. Both parties had coordinated out-of-court and welcomed the proposed approach. The order classifies publicly unknown details of the confidential licence negotiations as confidential, sets out procedures for marking and objecting to confidentiality designations, restricts access to designated persons, and provides for potential periodic penalty payments for culpable breaches.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns procedural requests in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. Samsung sought to produce a third-party licence agreement and to extend the written procedure under R. 36 RoP to respond to ZTE's newly raised arguments regarding a published rate in the FRAND counterclaim context. The court rejected the request to extend the written procedure, provisionally permitted Samsung to respond in the interim procedure, ordered production of the licence agreement subject to confidentiality protections under R. 262A RoP, and closed the written procedure.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 905 730. The Defendants (Samsung entities) filed requests to produce their own licence agreement with a third party and to file further written submissions regarding new developments in licence negotiations and their own third-party licence agreements. The court dismissed these requests as belated, holding that the front-loaded procedure required the Defendants to make such submissions and production requests at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 against multiple defendants. On 16 December 2025, the claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, with each party bearing its own costs and seeking reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 11,400) to the claimant.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 471 419 was filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. against six defendants before the Mannheim Local Division. The claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, with most defendants consenting and one defendant (ASD SAS) not participating. The court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 645 714 was brought by NEC Corporation against eight defendants before the Mannheim Local Division. On 16 December 2025, the claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, and most defendants consented. The court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, set the value in dispute at EUR 1,500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
Sun Patent Trust v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
This was an infringement action before the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 903 267. The plaintiff, Sun Patent Trust, filed a request on December 16, 2025 to withdraw the action against all eight defendants and to have 60% of the court fees refunded. Most defendants consented to the withdrawal and the proposed cost arrangement, while one defendant did not appear. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a partial refund of court fees.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al. v.Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court confirmed an ex-parte order that prohibited Amazon entities from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court aimed at blocking InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The court rejected Amazon's application to review the order, finding that InterDigital's RAND declaration to the ITU-T did not give Amazon a contractual right to an interim license enforceable in the UK, and that the UPC's jurisdiction over European patents in its territory had to be respected.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sued Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for direct and indirect infringement of the German and French parts of European Patent No. EP 3 652 914 B1, relating to methods and systems for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows. Palo Alto Networks counterclaimed for revocation, challenging sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The Mannheim Local Division found the counterclaim for revocation well-founded, revoked the patent entirely in France and Germany, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action, ordering Centripetal to bear the costs.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA
Polidoro S.p.a., the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 037 175 concerning a premixed burner, sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and its parent company NV Bekaert SA for patent infringement regarding two types of premixed burners of the 'Multipat' series. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claim 1 as granted (B1) and claim 1 as maintained in limited form (B2), dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall/removal/destruction, and information, with costs split 75% to defendants and 25% to the claimant.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et al.
Centripetal Limited sued Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH for direct infringement of Claim 16 and indirect infringement of Claim 1 of European Patent EP 3 821 580 B1, relating to methods and systems for efficient network protection, in Germany, Italy, France, and the Netherlands. The core dispute centered on the construction of the 'broker' feature and whether the defendants' Network Visibility products implemented the claimed three-stage security system. The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the infringement action, finding that the claimant failed to substantiate that the attacked embodiments performed the claimed broker functionality of determining a cyber analysis system based on threat metadata.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et al.
Procedural order of the Local Division Mannheim concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant requested reopening of the oral hearing after its closure, alleging that the Defendants' representative made false statements during the hearing regarding the lack of gateway and broker functionalities in the source code of the attacked embodiment. The Court rejected the request, holding that Rule 114 RoP is reserved for exceptional cases and cannot be used to present new infringement allegations after closure of the oral hearing.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al. v.Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
The defendants (Amazon entities) requested under Rule 115 RoP access to the audio recording of an oral hearing held on 14 November 2025 before the Local Division Mannheim, and permission to produce a complete transcript with the help of a professional transcriber for use in parallel US and UK proceedings. The court granted access to the audio recording at the premises of the Local Division Düsseldorf upon appointment, but rejected the request to produce a complete transcript, holding that Rule 115 RoP does not permit parties to create full transcripts for distribution outside UPC proceedings.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Blankenhorn GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court, related to main proceedings UPC_CFI_500/2025 concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought cost assessment against Blankenhorn GmbH, but the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. The court permitted the withdrawal of the cost assessment application and declared the proceedings terminated without a costs decision.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court against multiple entities of the Geely Group concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333, which relates to devices and methods for efficient allocation of resources in a mobile communication system. Several defendants filed objections under R. 19 of the Rules of Procedure, challenging both the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court and the local jurisdiction of the Mannheim Local Chamber. The court rejected all objections, finding that the international jurisdiction was established and that the joint action against all group-affiliated defendants was permissible before the Mannheim Local Chamber.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V. et al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against seven defendants concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The defendants filed a preliminary objection challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (domiciled in Bosnia and Herzegovina), competence over five Dutch defendants, and the competence of the Mannheim division, seeking transfer to The Hague. The court rejected all preliminary objections, finding that international jurisdiction and competence were properly established, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Before the Local Chamber Mannheim, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. sought to withdraw its infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning EP 3 567 731, while MediaTek Germany GmbH sought to withdraw its counterclaim for revocation. Both parties consented to the respective withdrawals and declared they would not make cost applications. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees to each party.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Total Semiconductor, LLC sued Texas Instruments and its German subsidiaries for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 746 957, which relates to an intelligent interrupt distributor in a multiprocessor system. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the claimant failed to substantiate that the attacked embodiments implemented certain features of the patent claim, and that the defendants' arguments regarding lack of inventive step based on general common knowledge were also unsuccessful.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et al.
Corning Incorporated filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 296 274 against multiple defendants including Hisense, TCL, and LG entities before the Mannheim Local Division. During the written procedure, Corning requested partial withdrawal of the infringement action against the LG defendants (Defendants 7-9), who in turn requested withdrawal of their counterclaim for revocation. The court permitted both withdrawals, closed the proceedings against the LG defendants, and ordered each side to bear their own costs regarding the withdrawn portions.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
Hurom Co., Ltd., a Korean manufacturer of juicers and registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1 (relating to a juice extractor), sued NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK for patent infringement regarding the 'AUTO10' slow juicer sold under the 'Kuvings' brand. The Local Division Mannheim separated the proceedings concerning Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom pending the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). Following that decision, the court held that the defendants infringed claim 1 of the patent in Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, ordering damages and an information/accounting obligation.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
Hurom Co., Ltd. sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 028 981 B1, which relates to a juice extractor, concerning NUC's slow juicer marketed as 'AUTO10'. The proceedings were separated from the main action to address the national parts of the patent in Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the action, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the Polish, Spanish, and UK national parts of the patent.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court revoked an ex-parte Saisie (evidence preservation) order that had been issued in favor of Centripetal Limited against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. concerning EP 3 281 580. The court found that the inspection had been executed against a separate legal entity (Palo Alto Networks (Germany) GmbH) rather than against the named Defendant, and that the Applicant had breached its duty of candor by failing to inform the court of this material change in circumstances.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerned Centripetal Limited's application for a penalty order against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for alleged non-compliance with a saisie (inspection) order related to European Patent EP 3 281 580. The court rejected the request, finding that Palo Alto was under no obligation to actively set up access rights or bring hardware to the Munich premises, as the inspection order only covered what was physically present at the specified location. The panel confirmed the Judge-rapporteur's order and denied leave to appeal.
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.