Mannheim (DE) Local Division
152 cases · page 2 of 6
Showing 31–59Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et. al.
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim on November 3, 2025, in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333. The plaintiff, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, brought the action against numerous defendants affiliated with the Geely automotive group, including entities related to Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart brands. The case involves an opposition under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, and the order was issued by the Rapporteur Judge Sender.
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. et. al.
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for invalidity regarding European Patent EP 3 567 731. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, the plaintiff Huawei Technologies requested permission to withdraw the infringement action against both defendants with the consent of Defendant 2, while Defendant 2 requested permission to withdraw its counterclaim for invalidity with the plaintiff's consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim granted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the court fees paid by each party, while declining to issue a cost decision since neither party filed cost applications.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Inc. et. al.
Total Semiconductor, LLC, a Texas-based licensing company that acquired European Patent EP 2 746 957 B1 from NXP B.V., sued Texas Instruments Incorporation and its German and EMEA sales subsidiaries for alleged infringement of the patent, which relates to an intelligent interrupt distributor in a multiprocessor system. The claimant sought injunctive relief, declarations of infringement, recall/removal, destruction, information communication, and a declaration of liability for damages in France and Germany. The Local Division Mannheim addressed issues including the required degree of substantiation for disputed patent features, the admissibility of new indirect infringement arguments raised for the first time at oral hearing, and the proper invocation of general common knowledge in inventive step assessments.
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 et. al.
Hurom Co., Ltd., the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 028 981 B1 relating to a juice extractor, brought a patent infringement action against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant alleged that slow juicers marketed by the Defendants under the name 'AUTO10' fell within the scope of the patent-in-suit. The proceedings were conducted in English, with oral hearings held on 28 January 2025 and 4 September 2025.
Hurom v.NUC
Hurom Co., Ltd., the registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1 relating to a juice extractor, brought a patent infringement action against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. before the Local Division Mannheim. Hurom alleged that NUC's slow juicers marketed under the name 'AUTO10' fell within the scope of the patent-in-suit. The proceedings were conducted in English, with oral hearings held on 28 January 2025 and 4 September 2025, and the decision was delivered on 2 October 2025.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 October 2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr Ralph Nack, Dr Niclas Gaj
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 Oktober 2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr Ralph Nack,
Robert Bosch GmbH v.Grizzly Tools et. al.
Robert Bosch GmbH filed an infringement action against Grizzly Tools and three Lidl entities concerning European Patent EP 3 030 383 B1, asserting infringement in Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Poland. The defendants filed separate objections under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure challenging the court's jurisdiction over non-UPC contracting member states (Poland, Spain, and the UK). The Mannheim Local Chamber rejected the objections, holding that establishing international jurisdiction under Article 4(1) and Article 63(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation requires only demonstrating that the defendant has its seat in an EU member state of the court seized, and that under Article 71b(1) Brussels Ia, it suffices to show the seat is in one of the states establishing the common court.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This order concerns an application by MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements referenced by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in the infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 567 731. Huawei agreed to produce most of the identified license agreements but objected to the production of two additional agreements relating exclusively to network infrastructure products. The Local Chamber Mannheim partially granted the application, ordering Huawei to produce the license agreements listed on pages 2 and 3 of its August 15, 2025 statement, while declining to order production of certain other agreements.
Windhager Handels GmbH v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The plaintiff bellissa HAAS GmbH, sole registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1 concerning a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip, sued Windhager GmbH and two individual defendants for alleged direct, and alternatively indirect, literal infringement of the patent. The patent, valid in Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg, claims an edging for beds and green areas consisting of at least two sheet metal strips with interlocking tongue-and-slot connection ends. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued headnotes clarifying that offering or supplying all components designed for simple assembly at the place of use constitutes direct patent infringement under Art. 25(a) EPGÜ, and that individual sale of a coordinated component likewise constitutes direct infringement when assembly is indicated or otherwise obvious.
HMD Global Oy v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Mannheim granted HMD Global Oy's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. based on European patent EP3667981. The defendant argued that English was the predominant language in mobile communications technology, that the evidence and ETSI standard specifications were predominantly in English, and that conducting proceedings in German imposed significant translation burdens and costs. Applying the framework established by the Court of Appeal, the Court weighed all relevant circumstances and found the outcome balanced, holding that in cases of equal weighting, the position of the defendant—who did not initiate the action and faces strict preparation deadlines—shall prevail.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957, in which the claimant Total Semiconductor, LLC sought review of an order by the judge-rapporteur requiring it to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had requested security for costs, arguing that the claimant, a recently founded US-based licensing entity operating from a co-working space and funded by third-party investors, posed an enforcement and insolvency risk. The claimant opposed, contending that the defendants failed to establish sufficient facts demonstrating a real risk that cost reimbursement could not be satisfied or enforced.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This provisional order concerns a confidentiality application filed by the defendants (MediaTek) in connection with their statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 567 731. The defendants sought protection for technical information regarding the functioning of certain chips, particularly the implementation of an encoding algorithm, and requested that access be limited to a maximum of three named persons from the plaintiff's legal department. Huawei opposed the request, arguing the information was not protectable as it consisted merely of negative facts, and alternatively requested access for nine, six, or three named persons.
Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants, Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, to stay both infringement and revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. EP 3 821 580 pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The defendants argued that a preliminary EPO opinion indicating added matter made revocation highly likely. The claimant, Centripetal Limited, opposed the stay, arguing the preliminary opinion was non-binding and that the UPC proceedings were well-advanced with an oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the stay request, finding it preferable to proceed with the hearing as planned to avoid conflicting decisions.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a request for security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. sued MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 567 731, while MediaTek Germany GmbH filed a counterclaim for revocation. MediaTek Germany GmbH sought an order requiring Huawei to post security of €239,000 within six weeks, arguing that enforcement of a cost decision against the Chinese claimant would be de facto impossible or significantly more difficult. Huawei opposed the request, contending that it has consistently met its payment obligations in prior proceedings and that the amount demanded was excessive.
Blankenhorn GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a cost allocation dispute (Rule 360 RoP) between Faro Technologies, Inc. and Blankenhorn GmbH (Respondent 2) in proceedings concerning EP 4 001 835. The original proceedings involved an application for interim measures (injunction and sequestration) under Art. 62 EPGÜ against both PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (the manufacturer) and Blankenhorn GmbH (the German distributor), following alleged infringement observed at the 'Control' trade fair in Stuttgart on May 6, 2025. After Faro settled with PMT Technologies and Blankenhorn submitted a cease-and-desist declaration, Blankenhorn sought a ruling on cost allocation for the now-concluded proceedings between the two of them.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Respondent
Faro Technologies, Inc. withdrew its application for interim measures against PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and sought a 60% reimbursement of the court fees paid in connection with that application under Rule 370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Mannheim rejected the request, holding that Rule 370.9(b)(i) applies only to actions and cannot be applied directly or by analogy to applications for interim measures. The court further noted that the fixed court fee for an interim measures application is already substantially reduced compared to a full action and does not depend on the number of parties, so no partial reimbursement was warranted even if the rule had applied.
Decathlon v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 697 604. The Claimant (Decathlon) requested that the court disregard portions of the Defendants' rejoinder to the application to amend the patent, which contained arguments regarding the validity of the patent as granted. The court granted the request, holding that such content exceeded the permissible scope of a rejoinder under the Rules of Procedure, and informed the parties of its intention to close the written procedure on 1 September 2025.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Nordic AB, Samsung Electronics France SAS, Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A. v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action related to EP 2 936 439. All parties agreed to a uniform fictitious service date of 1 September 2025 for all Defendants, avoiding service abroad on Defendant 2 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.). The court granted the agreed extension of procedural deadlines, setting new dates for preliminary objections, statements of defence, and the Claimant's reply.
Centripetal Limited v.Respondent
The Local Division Mannheim issued a procedural order confirming the judge-rapporteur's earlier decision to reject the Claimant's request to submit a further written pleading on infringement. The Claimant, Centripetal Limited, sought to introduce a new infringement reading based on an alleged newly discovered functionality of the attacked embodiment, but the panel held that allowing such a submission at this late stage would prejudice the Defendants and disrupt the scheduled oral hearing. The panel further barred the Claimant from introducing a fifth infringement reading, noting that the relevant functionalities had been known to the Claimant since 2023 ITC proceedings and since the March 2025 launch of the Defendants' AI Stack.
ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., Ninepoint GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a request by Defendants 2 to 6 (ASUS-related entities and Ninepoint GmbH) to extend the time period for submitting their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 849 157. The defendants argued that the time period should run from when they obtained access to the unredacted version of exhibit BB1, which contained an agreement between the Claimant and the patent's co-owner. The court granted a one-week extension, extending the deadline to 30 September 2025, finding that the extension was sufficient to compensate for the delayed access to evidence.
CeraCon GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns a request for review of a judge-rapporteur's order that had dismissed CeraCon GmbH's application to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413 by introducing a new novelty attack based on Euro-PCT application EP 3 868 480 A1. The panel confirmed the earlier order, holding that the amendment was excluded under R. 263.2(a) RoP because CeraCon failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the prior art. The request for review was rejected.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO BILLING US CORP., AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.Respondent
The defendants filed an application under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking cost assessment for attorney fees incurred during an appeal proceeding brought by the plaintiffs against an order requiring security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Local Chamber Mannheim held the application inadmissible, ruling that costs arising from the application, opposition, or defense of procedural orders, including security-for-costs orders, cannot be assessed in a separate cost assessment proceeding under Rule 150 RoP but must instead be assessed as part of the overall procedural costs in the cost assessment following the substantive decision.
WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an application by Hurom Co., Ltd. under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect certain cost-related information submitted in connection with its application for a cost decision under Rule 150 et seq. RoP. The information sought to be protected is a breakdown of the hours worked by its legal representatives. The Respondents (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) opposed the request, arguing there was no legitimate interest in confidentiality vis-à-vis them. The legally qualified judge Böttcher, acting as judge-rapporteur, issued the procedural order addressing the confidentiality request.
NUC Electronics Co., Ltd v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_162/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 4 August 2025 concerning EP 2 028 981 concerning App_33193/2025 (Request for a penalty payment, R. 354.4 RoP) concerning App_33935/2025 (request for the extens
Centripetal Limited v.Respondent
The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Claimant's (Centripetal Limited) request under Rule 36 for a further written pleading in its infringement action against Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The court held that allowing additional briefing would prejudice procedural fairness, disrupt the front-loaded procedure mandated by the Rules of Procedure, and was unnecessary because the functionalities the Claimant sought to newly attack had been known to it for considerable time.
Anker Innovations (Netherlands) B.V., Anker Technology (UK) Ltd., Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd., Anker Innovations Ltd., Fantasia Trading LLC, Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 in an infringement action brought by Powermat Technologies, Ltd. against multiple Anker entities and Fantasia Trading LLC. The defendants filed a conditional request to stay the infringement proceedings pending the resolution of their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich Local Division. The court postponed its decision on the stay request until after the oral hearing on the merits.
Discord Netherlands B.V., Discord Inc. v.Respondent
The Mannheim Local Division dismissed an application by Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. seeking to bar Malikie Innovations Ltd.'s infringement action concerning EP 3 716 655 in relation to Germany. Discord argued that Malikie, lacking a residence or establishment in Germany, had failed to appoint a domestic representative under Sec. 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), rendering the infringement action manifestly bound to fail for Germany under Rules 361 and 362 RoP. The court held that Sec. 25(1) GPA is a German national procedural provision inapplicable to UPC proceedings, and that even if it were applicable, the alleged defect would be remediable rather than irremediable.
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.