Mannheim (DE) Local Division
164 cases · page 2 of 6
Showing 31–59Huawei 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.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et. al.
This case concerned an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust regarding European Patent EP 2 903 267 against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings, INFINIX Mobility, TECNO Mobile, and several European distributors. On December 16, 2025, the plaintiff filed a request to withdraw the action against all defendants, which was consented to by defendants 1-4 and 6-8, while defendant 5 (ASD SAS) did not appear. The Mannheim Local Chamber allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, set the dispute value at EUR 1,500,000, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees (EUR 11,400) to the plaintiff.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et. al. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
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 Ltd. 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.
Polidoros S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. et.al.
Polidoro S.p.a., the registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 037 175 relating to a premixed burner (especially for condensation boilers), sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and its parent company NV Bekaert SA for alleged patent infringement. The patent was upheld in limited form following opposition proceedings, with the opposition decision published on 27 November 2024. The claimant sought injunctive relief, recall/removal, destruction, information, damages, and publication of the decision across several UPCA contracting member states including Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Portugal.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et. al.
Centripetal Limited, the registered and sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 821 580 B1 relating to Methods and Systems for Efficient Network Protection, sued Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH for direct infringement of Claim 16 and indirect infringement of Claim 1 of the patent in Germany, Italy, France, and the Netherlands. The patent was granted and published on 29 May 2024, and the prior opt-out was withdrawn from the register on 12 July 2024. The case was heard by a panel of the Local Division Mannheim on 9 October 2025, with a decision delivered on 5 December 2025.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et. al.
This procedural order concerns a request by the Claimant, Centripetal Limited, to reopen the oral hearing in a patent infringement action against Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant sought reopening based on post-hearing discussions with an expert who allegedly had access to the Defendants' source code in US proceedings, claiming the Defendants' representative made false statements about the absence of gateway and broker functionalities. The Court rejected the request, holding that Rule 114 RoP is reserved for exceptional cases arising during the oral hearing and cannot be used to introduce new infringement allegations after closure of proceedings.
InterDigital VC Holdings 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) related to a prior main case (UPC_CFI_500/2025) concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought cost assessment against Blankenhorn GmbH, the respondent from the main proceedings. The court permitted the withdrawal of the cost assessment application after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the respondent did not object, declaring the cost assessment procedure terminated without a costs decision.
Nokia 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.
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.