Mannheim (DE) Local Division
158 cases · page 2 of 6
Showing 31–59Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a motion for disclosure of license agreements in an ongoing infringement and FRAND dispute between Huawei and MediaTek. The court partially granted the respondent's request, compelling the claimant (Huawei) to submit specific relevant licensing contracts. However, the court rejected broader demands for disclosing all related contractual amendments and supplementary agreements. This ruling underscores the Court's careful balancing act between ensuring full transparency in SEP disputes and protecting confidential business information.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In this UPC case concerning a semiconductor patent, the court addressed a critical procedural issue: security for costs. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant, a non-practicing entity structured as a licensing company, should provide financial guarantees to cover potential legal expenses. The Court rejected the Claimant's arguments regarding its startup status and co-working space operations, upholding the requirement for security. This decision reinforces the UPC's strict stance on ensuring procedural fairness and cost recovery in infringement actions.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.HMD Global Oy
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application by the Defendant, HMD Global Oy, seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The Court found that while both parties were international entities with comparable resources, the principle dictates that if interests are equal, the position of the non-initiating party (the Defendant) prevails. Consequently, the request for a language change was granted, allowing the case to proceed in English.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handels GmbH (and Johann Windhager, Stefan Windhager)
This UPC decision addresses a complex infringement case involving interlocking metal strips used for garden edging. The court issued significant legal guidance, establishing that merely offering or supplying components designed to assemble easily constitutes direct patent infringement. While the claimant secured an injunction and damages against the main defendant, the overall infringement claim was partially dismissed, highlighting the nuanced application of component supply rules in UPC litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this preliminary injunction case, Huawei sought protection for technical information disclosed by MediaTek in its counterclaim regarding chip functionality and encoding algorithms. The court granted confidentiality status to these specific technical documents, recognizing their sensitive nature despite the claimant's arguments that they were merely 'negative facts.' However, the request to protect a witness's name was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of risk. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to balance proprietary interests against procedural needs in complex technology disputes.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In a procedural order, the Local Division in Mannheim rejected Keysight Technologies' request to stay infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 821 580. The defendant sought a stay based on a preliminary EPO opinion suggesting the patent suffered from added matter. However, the UPC court determined that the case was ripe for hearing and that waiting would cause undue delay, preferring to proceed with its own decision-making process.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC costs case, the court addressed a request by MediaTek Germany GmbH for Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. to provide security due to its non-EU domicile. While acknowledging enforcement difficulties against Chinese entities, the Local Chamber of Mannheim ultimately ruled that security was necessary. Crucially, the court reduced the demanded amount from €239,000 to €100,000, basing this decision on established cost limits and the complex structure of the litigation involving multiple defendants.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the costs allocation in a provisional measures proceeding concerning EP 4 001 835. The core dispute involved whether the application was moot and who should bear the legal costs, particularly regarding Respondent No. 2 (Blankenhorn GmbH). Although the claimant sought to impose costs on Respondent No. 2 due to lack of formal warning, the court found that since both parties agreed the matter was settled, the proceedings were terminated. The court ultimately upheld the imposition of costs on Respondent No. 2 based on principles of equity.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.; Blankenhorn GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application concerning court fees following the withdrawal of an interim measure claim. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought a partial refund of legal costs after withdrawing its action against one respondent. The Mannheim Local Court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing that the relevant fee reimbursement rules are designed for full lawsuits and do not apply to applications for provisional measures. This ruling serves as a reminder of the strict procedural boundaries governing cost recovery in UPC proceedings.
Decathlon v.OWIM GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG, Kaufland Marketplace GmbH, Lidl Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request to disregard parts of the Defendants' rejoinder regarding patent validity. The Court emphasized strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure (RoP), ruling that submissions must not exceed the scope permitted for the specific pleading stage. This decision reinforces the importance of procedural discipline within the UPC framework, preventing parties from introducing extraneous arguments or summaries outside the prescribed written procedure.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Nordic AB, Samsung Electronics France SAS, Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the Mannheim Local Division granted requests from all parties to harmonize timelines and service dates in an infringement action concerning EP 2 936 439. The court accepted the agreement to set uniform service dates for all defendants and extended deadlines for filing defenses and replies. This decision underscores the UPC's flexibility in managing proceedings efficiently when parties mutually agree on procedural adjustments.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected Centripetal Limited's request for a final written brief in an ongoing infringement action. The claimant sought to introduce a substantially new functionality reading late in the proceedings. The Panel ruled that allowing such a late submission would violate procedural fairness and compromise the preparation time for the upcoming oral hearing, thereby maintaining the original rejection order.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc.; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUS France S.a.r.l.; ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l.; ASUS Europe B.V.; Ninepoint GmbH
This procedural order addressed a request by multiple defendants (ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH) to extend the time limit for filing their statement of defence. The extension was sought because they required access to an unredacted exhibit related to the claimant's entitlement to assert the patent-in-suit. The court partially granted the request, finding that a short extension was justified to compensate for the delay in accessing minor evidence, while rejecting demands for a full extension.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case concerning EP 4 108 413 addressed a request by the counterclaim claimant to amend its revocation proceedings by introducing new prior art. The court rejected this application, reinforcing strict rules regarding the late introduction of evidence under Rule 263 RoP. The decision highlights the importance of due diligence in patent searches and the procedural necessity of preventing undue delay or prejudice to the defendant's defense.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
In a procedural order concerning cost proceedings, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim ruled in favor of Hurom Co., Ltd., granting protection for confidential information related to legal representation costs. Specifically, the court classified the detailed breakdown of attorneys' hours worked as strictly confidential under R. 262A RoP and Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the principle that professional client-attorney privilege extends to cost documentation within UPC proceedings, safeguarding sensitive operational details.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
This UPC decision from Mannheim addresses a procedural motion concerning cost allocation arising from an appeal against a process security order. The court ruled that costs related to defending or challenging such procedural orders cannot be determined separately under Rule 150 of the Rules of Procedure (VerfO). Instead, they must be integrated into the final overall cost assessment following the substantive judgment. Crucially, the application was also deemed moot because the main decision had already established a unified approach to costs.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request for an extension of time related to a penalty payment enforcement action concerning EP 2 028 981. The court balanced the parties' interests against the need for efficient proceedings, ultimately granting only a two-week extension. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural extensions are limited and do not negate the defendant's original obligation to provide information in due time.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed Centripetal Limited's request for a further written pleading. The court stressed the importance of adhering to the Rules of Procedure (RoP), stating that pleadings should not be used to introduce new infringement readings late in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to efficient case management and procedural fairness, particularly regarding timely preparation for oral hearings.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 481 141, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by Anker Innovations and associated entities to stay infringement proceedings. The defendants sought a stay pending a decision on their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich LD. The Court determined that this request must be decided after the oral hearing because the applicability of the FRAND defense depends entirely on the outcome of the main infringement and validity arguments.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural challenge raised by Discord Inc. and its subsidiary, arguing that the claimant, Malikie Innovations Ltd., failed to comply with German national requirements (Sec. 25 GPA) regarding the appointment of a domestic representative. The Mannheim Local Division rejected this defense, establishing that national procedural rules like Sec. 25 GPA do not govern proceedings before the UPC due to the exhaustive nature of the UPC's own procedural law. This ruling reinforces the principle that the UPC operates independently of specific national jurisdictional formalities.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order addressed a penalty application filed by Centripetal Limited against Palo Alto Networks following an attempted inspection (saisie) under UPC authority. The Claimant sought penalties because the Defendant allegedly refused to grant access to monitor its network security systems. However, the Court found that the scope of the original inspection order was limited strictly to what was physically present at the premises. Since the requested technical setup and documentation were not available in the sales office, the Defendant's non-compliance could not constitute a breach, leading to the rejection of the penalty request.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the valuation of cases involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and FRAND counterclaims. The Court ruled that a FRAND counterclaim significantly expands the scope and value in dispute beyond the initial infringement action, distinguishing it from a simple defense or a revocation counterclaim. This ruling clarifies that SEPs litigation can involve complex valuations based on licensing terms, even if those fees exceed standard infringement claim values.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a significant enforcement ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance imposed severe penalties on Kodak entities for non-compliance with a previous final decision regarding EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm successfully argued that despite clear deadlines and notices, the Defendants failed to execute obligations related to information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from commerce. The court established a multi-tiered penalty structure, starting with an immediate lump sum payment of €100,000, escalating to daily fines, underscoring the UPC's robust enforcement mechanisms.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by Malikie Innovations Ltd. to harmonize time periods related to a counterclaim for revocation (CCR) filed by Discord Inc. The court rejected the extension request, confirming that the deadlines would proceed based on the actual date of service of the CCR within the main infringement workflow. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural rules regarding when defense and amendment periods commence in UPC proceedings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This Mannheim Local Division decision addresses the complex jurisdictional interplay between the UPC and national courts regarding European bundle patents validated in the UK. The court confirmed that while infringement can be litigated before the UPC, revocation of the UK-validated national part cannot occur with erga omnes effect through the UPC. Crucially, it allowed the validity defense to proceed within the infringement action, but only with inter partes effect. Ultimately, the infringement claim was dismissed due to successful invalidity challenges.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This Mannheim Local Division decision clarifies complex jurisdictional issues surrounding European bundle patents validated in the UK. The court affirmed the UPC's jurisdiction over the infringement of the UK national part, allowing defendants to raise invalidity defenses within the UPC proceedings without needing a separate national revocation action. While finding infringement and ordering product recall/destruction, the ruling emphasizes that declaratory relief obtained before the UPC is not binding on UK national authorities.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request by Kodak defendants seeking enhanced confidentiality protections for information disclosed during enforcement proceedings following an earlier infringement judgment. The court rejected these requests, emphasizing that such confidentiality issues should have been raised and addressed within the original merits proceedings. The ruling reinforces the principle that existing judicial limitations on information use are often sufficient, preventing parties from using tactical procedural applications to secure retroactive secrecy.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures regarding EP 4 001 835, the court denied a request by PMT Technologies to postpone the oral hearing. The ruling emphasized the inherent urgency of interim relief proceedings, stating that scheduling conflicts, such as vacation, do not automatically justify postponement. However, the court provided flexibility by allowing for participation via video conference.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
In a procedural matter, the UPC granted an extension of time periods in a complex infringement and revocation case involving Fingon LLC and Samsung Electronics. The Defendants successfully argued that they required additional time to analyze new technical arguments introduced by the Claimant, particularly those stemming from third-party software developers. This decision underscores the Court's willingness to grant extensions when parties demonstrate genuine need for further expert or external input, provided it does not unduly delay the proceedings.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a request for panel review concerning an intended enforcement warning related to EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm Corporation sought to impose daily penalties on the Kodak defendants for non-compliance with previous court orders (destruction, recall, removal from commerce). The Panel ultimately rejected this review request, affirming that the original decision was legally sound. This ruling reinforces the procedural boundaries of UPC panel reviews, clarifying that detailed penalty setting must occur in a subsequent application rather than being altered during a review of the main judgment.
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.