Mannheim (DE) Local Division
158 cases · page 3 of 6
Showing 61–89Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this procedural order, Centripetal Limited sought a preservation of evidence (Saisie) against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., alleging highly probable infringement of EP 3 821 580 related to network security solutions. The applicant requested extensive measures, including real-time monitoring and seizure of digital data at the defendant's premises. Despite the case being referred back by the Court of Appeal (CoA), the Local Division in Mannheim ultimately rejected the application for interim measures.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company
In this procedural case concerning an Anti-anti-suit Injunction (AASI), the court addressed the defendants' refusal to properly acknowledge service. The claimant argued that the defendants were deliberately obstructing the legal process by limiting their representation and refusing formal acknowledgment of the AASI. The Mannheim Local Chamber ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that such procedural tactics are invalid and constitute a breach of professional conduct. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring proper due process and compliance with its orders within the UPC framework.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for a complex UPC case involving TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR against Texas Instruments regarding EP 2 746 957. The court has meticulously outlined numerous technical questions, focusing heavily on claim construction related to processor architecture, interrupt handling, and power management features like 'directly coupled' and 'clock gating.' Both infringement and a counterclaim for revocation will be heard at the upcoming oral hearing.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement action involving InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company group. The defendants successfully argued that the proceedings should be conducted in English, the language of the patent EP3259902, citing fairness and the business language of the involved parties. The court granted this request, setting a precedent for aligning procedural language with the patent's grant language when supported by all relevant parties.
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 from the Local Division Mannheim, Corning Incorporated successfully obtained a two-week extension of time to file its reply and defense. The court grounded its decision in established UPC case law, recognizing that parties must be compensated for periods where they do not have full access to confidential facts presented by opponents. This ruling reinforces the practical application of procedural fairness within the UPC's confidentiality framework.
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted an extension of time to Palo Alto Networks, Inc., in a patent infringement action brought by Centripetal Ltd. The court recognized that unforeseen global events had created significant logistical obstacles for the defendant's technical team and key personnel. This decision underscores the court's willingness to balance strict adherence to procedural timelines with practical realities faced by parties during exceptional circumstances.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.
In this procedural matter, Irdeto B.V. sued several DJI entities for patent infringement concerning EP 2 831 787. The defendants requested an extension and harmonization of the time periods for filing their Statement of Defence due to technical complexity. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim partially granted the request, establishing a uniform deadline but rejecting the plea for further delay. This decision underscores the court's focus on procedural efficiency while maintaining strict requirements for demonstrating genuine need for extensions.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France
In this preliminary order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed the valuation of a complex case involving an infringement action against Samsung by ZTE, which included a FRAND counterclaim. The court ruled that basing the value solely on the patent-in-suit is insufficient for assessing the scope of a FRAND license. This decision significantly impacts the financial burden and procedural trajectory of the dispute, setting a preliminary, higher valuation for the overall proceedings.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
This Mannheim Local Court decision addressed a complex UPC case involving DISH Technologies and Sling TV against several defendants regarding EP 2 479 680, which covers rate-adaptive streaming methods. The ruling provided crucial guidance on patent law principles, specifically defining the limits of 'technical-functional equivalence' in infringement analysis. It also clarified that isolated challenges to dependent claims are generally insufficient for legal protection without challenging the independent claim.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This UPC procedural order addressed a request by the counterclaim claimant (CCR) to introduce new prior art into its revocation proceedings against EP 4 108 413. The CCR sought leave to amend its case based on a newly discovered document, arguing for generous application of amendment rules. However, the Court dismissed the request, reinforcing strict adherence to procedural requirements in counterclaim for revocation actions. The ruling highlights the court's priority of procedural certainty and protecting the defendant from late-stage attacks.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the claimant sought to amend its damages claim to include profits derived from ancillary sales of sealing material and service contracts related to the allegedly infringing machines. The court addressed the admissibility of this clarification under R. 263 RoP, balancing the need for a front-loaded procedure against the defendant's right to defense. Ultimately, the court permitted the claimant to clarify its request without formal amendment while deferring the final decision on the scope of damages until after the oral hearing.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case concerning EP 2 839 403 addressed a dispute over whether the Claimant's introduction of new technical details and product examples constituted an impermissible amendment to the infringement action. The Court determined that providing further illustrative examples of existing functionalities, even on newly released models, does not change the nature or scope of the original dispute. Consequently, while the request to exclude these submissions was postponed for a full panel review, all other procedural requests by the Defendants were dismissed.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sought a warning from the UPC Local Division Mannheim, requesting that Kodak GmbH and its affiliates pay up to EUR 30,000 per day if they failed to comply with information requests set out in a previous judgment. The court rejected this application, emphasizing that since the original decision retained flexibility regarding timelines and penalties, any enforcement or penalty determination must occur through subsequent applications. This ruling reinforces the procedural approach of the UPC concerning non-compliance warnings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by NUC Electronics and WARMCOOK to impose strict confidentiality measures on information they submitted to the court. The defendants sought protection because they had appealed the underlying decision ordering them to disclose the data. However, the Court ultimately dismissed their request, holding that the existing limitations on how the claimant can use the information are adequate protection under trade secret law. This ruling clarifies the scope of R. 262A RoP when information is provided as part of a merits judgment.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendants (NUC Electronics and WARMCOOK) to impose strict confidentiality measures on information they were required to provide to the claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.). The defendants sought protection pending an appeal against the underlying decision. However, the UPC Local Division Mannheim dismissed this request entirely. The court held that since the information was already subject to inherent usage restrictions tied to the infringement action, and because the defendant must provide the data directly to the claimant, a separate confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP was unnecessary.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This procedural order in the Mannheim Local Division addressed a dispute over the language of proceedings in an infringement action concerning EP 4 108 413. The Claimant, Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH, sought to confirm its choice of English as the official language. The Court ruled that the Claimant's initial designation and filing in English was valid, thereby resolving the procedural issue regarding the language.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
In this UPC case, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. initiated proceedings against Advanced Bionics entities regarding patent EP 4 074 373 B1. However, the parties mutually agreed to withdraw the claim. The court formally granted the withdrawal and terminated the case. This decision highlights how mutual settlements can lead to a swift conclusion of complex UPC litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
Samsung initiated an infringement action against ZTE regarding standard-essential patents related to 5G mobile devices. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim issued an order setting the preliminary value of the dispute at €4 million. This decision significantly raises the financial stakes for both parties, reflecting the broad commercial impact of the alleged infringement across key market segments.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addressed a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to allow further written pleadings in an infringement action against Texas Instruments. The Claimant argued that new and complex technical points raised by the Defendants required additional time for submission. However, the UPC Panel dismissed this review application, emphasizing strict formal requirements for procedural requests under R. 36 RoP. This decision reinforces the court's adherence to established case law regarding the necessary level of substantiation in managing litigation timelines.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim harmonized the deadlines for two related defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. The court agreed with the parties' request to set a uniform deadline of July 2, 2025, for submitting Statements of Defence. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the Court's willingness to manage procedural complexities in multi-defendant cases involving corporate groups, prioritizing efficiency over strict adherence to initial service dates.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order addresses a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to amend its infringement action to include the AM67x product as an attacked embodiment. The court recognized the complexity of balancing the claimant's need to address new market activity against the defendants' right to prepare their defense. Instead of making a final ruling immediately, the judge postponed the decision until the oral hearing while granting the defendants time to respond in substance to the proposed amendment.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division Mannheim addressed the claimant's request for additional written submissions regarding AVS Class 0. The Court found that while repeated requests are usually inadmissible, it exceptionally allowed limited supplementation on this specific technical point to ensure all arguments were considered before the oral hearing. This decision highlights the court's balance between procedural efficiency and ensuring a fair presentation of complex technical issues.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order concerning a patent infringement action, the Claimant sought leave to amend its case to include new submissions regarding 'Threat Simulator' and 'ThreatARMOR.' The Defendants opposed this request. The Local Division Mannheim postponed the final decision on whether to grant this leave until the oral hearing. This ruling highlights the Court's cautious approach when assessing amendments that introduce potentially distinct attacked embodiments, requiring a full understanding of the patent scope before making a determination.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This decision addresses an application for rectification filed by Kodak against a previous ruling concerning patent infringement and revocation. The defendants sought to clarify the value in dispute, arguing it should be set separately for the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. However, the UPC Local Division dismissed this request, confirming that the original panel intended the EUR 15 million figure to cover both actions collectively. This case reinforces the strict interpretation of Rule 353 RoP regarding what constitutes an 'obvious slip' or deviation from the court's actual intention.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed the varying service dates of three related ZTE entities. The court ruled that to ensure procedural fairness and efficiency, all parties agreed to harmonize the deadlines for submitting defenses and revocation counterclaims. This decision establishes a uniform timeline across the group defendants, streamlining the ongoing litigation.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 037 175, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim granted Polidoro S.p.a. an extension of one week to file its reply brief and defense against Bekaert's counterclaim for revocation. The court acknowledged that delays in providing unredacted documents necessitated this procedural adjustment. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to ensuring fair procedure, even when dealing with complex litigation involving both infringement claims and revocation counterclaims.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company. The Court granted the request to change the language from German to English, citing fairness and considering all relevant circumstances under Art. 49(5) UPCA. The ruling reinforces that the defendant's position is a decisive factor when weighing interests in such procedural matters.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request concerning the composition of the confidentiality club in an ongoing infringement action involving Fujifilm and Kodak. The court ruled that while the claimant could not fully expand its access authorizations, it was granted permission to replace certain members with others whose involvement did not pose an undue risk to the defendants' confidential information. This highlights the court's careful balancing act when managing procedural aspects of sensitive IP litigation.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd.; Anker Technology (UK) Ltd.; Anker Innovations (Netherlands) B.V.; Anker Innovations Ltd.; Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH; Fantasia Trading LLC
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Mannheim Local Division addressed issues related to service dates and deadlines. The parties successfully negotiated a uniform date of service for all defendants, which allowed the Court to set consistent timelines for preliminary objections and statements of defense across all involved entities. This decision highlights the flexibility of the UPC in managing complex multi-jurisdictional litigation through party consent.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC
This UPC procedural order in Mannheim addresses an infringement action brought by DISH Technologies and Sling TV against several defendants, including Brockwell Group. The court has not yet ruled on the merits but has meticulously outlined the complex technical and legal issues for the upcoming oral hearing. Key points include interpreting the scope of 'server' and 'bitrate' within the patent claims, clarifying whether infringement is cumulative across various streaming services, and addressing the procedural implications of the patent's impending expiration.
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.