Mannheim (DE) Local Division
152 cases · page 3 of 6
Showing 61–89Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 July 2025 App_32933/2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr
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 order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 24 July 2025, concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. The court confirmed its earlier order of 20 June 2025, holding that a FRAND counterclaim is not merely a defence to the infringement action but expands the subject-matter and value in dispute of the proceedings. The court rejected the Defendants' arguments that the FRAND counterclaim should be treated like a counterclaim for revocation for fee purposes or that it should be exempt from court fees.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
This enforcement proceeding arose from a decision of 2 April 2025 in UPC_CFI_365/2023 concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, in which FUJIFILM sought to enforce operative parts requiring the Kodak defendants to provide information, destroy infringing embodiments, recall products, and remove them from channels of commerce. The Mannheim Local Division found that the defendants had failed to comply with these obligations despite proper notification and service, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding lack of warning and insufficient translations. The court imposed a three-pronged penalty regime including a lump-sum payment of €100,000, daily penalties of €2,500 until 4 August 2025, and escalated penalties of €10,000 per day thereafter.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Respondent
An order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 716 655, addressing a precautionary request by the claimant to harmonize time periods in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, holding that the counterclaim for revocation was only effectively served on the claimant on 10 July 2025, and therefore the time period for filing a defence to the counterclaim for revocation did not commence before that date.
UPC Decision UPC-000540 v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities before the Unified Patent Court Local Division Mannheim for infringement of EP 3 511 174 B1, a European patent relating to lithographic printing plate precursors. The proceedings concerning the UK part of the patent were separated following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court held that while it has jurisdiction to decide infringement of the UK part of a European bundle patent, it cannot revoke the UK part with erga omnes effect, and the defendants may raise invalidity as a defense with inter partes effect only.
UPC Decision UPC-000538 v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, in Germany and the United Kingdom. The Mannheim Local Division separated the proceedings regarding the UK part of the patent following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court assessed the validity of the UK part as a mere prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect, found the patent invalid, and dismissed the infringement action with costs borne by FUJIFILM.
PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by the first respondent, PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., to postpone the oral hearing scheduled for September 1, 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. The Mannheim Local Chamber denied the postponement request, holding that the inherent urgency of interim measure proceedings requires very special circumstances for a postponement, and that vacation absences of legal and patent attorney representatives do not qualify as such. The court further offered the parties an opportunity to raise objections to the first respondent's participation via video link by July 24, 2025.
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of 2 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 511 174. The defendants (Kodak entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for information they were required to disclose during enforcement. The court rejected the request, holding that the defendants should have raised confidentiality in the main proceedings, that the main decision already restricted use of the information to the stated purposes, and that no specific risk of misuse was demonstrated.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 839 403, in which the defendants (Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.) sought a three-week extension of time to file their rejoinder and reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation. The defendants argued they needed additional time to respond to new technical arguments involving third-party-developed software applications and security environments. The Mannheim Local Division granted the extension, finding justified exceptional circumstances existed, and extended the relevant deadlines to 11 August 2025.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 June 2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr Ralph Nack, Dr Nic
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company, Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, BAMTech LLC.
This case concerns an application by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Interdigital CE Patent Holdings SAS against The Walt Disney Company and several related entities regarding four European patents. The dispute arose after the applicants obtained an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) on May 27, 2025, and sought to serve it on the respondents' representatives via the special electronic lawyer mailbox (beA). The respondents' representatives refused to issue a confirmation of receipt, claiming improper service, while simultaneously communicating that their clients would not seek an Anti-Suit Injunction. The Local Chamber Mannheim, presided over by Judge Tochtermann, addressed the refusal to accept service under Rule 206 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
The Walt Disney Company entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. concerning EP3259902, applied for a change of the language of proceedings from German to English under Article 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant opposed the request, arguing that all defendants should submit their own corresponding applications or alternatively be given the opportunity to be heard before any decision is issued. The President of the Court of First Instance ruled that the position of all parties potentially affected by the requested change must be heard in the context of such an application.
Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The claimant, Total Semiconductor, LLC, has brought suit against Texas Instruments Incorporation and two of its German subsidiaries. The order, issued by judge-rapporteur Böttcher, sets out preliminary views and questions for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 22 July 2025, addressing issues including the requirements for defending dependent claims, claim construction regarding the term 'interrupt,' and the interpretation of 'directly coupled' in the relevant patent features.
Corning Incorporated v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 July 2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Corning - US represented by: Dr. Marcus Grosch, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sul
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a request by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Defendant) to extend the time period for filing its rejoinder in infringement proceedings, reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, and defence against the application to amend European patent EP 3 652 914. The court granted a two-week extension until 14 July 2025, citing the outbreak of hostilities affecting the Defendant's key technical employee based in Israel, but shortened the extension to 9 July 2025 in the event the Defendant files an application for access restrictions under R. 262A RoP.
Solectric GmbH, DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by Defendants DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH to extend and harmonize the time periods for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action brought by Irdeto B.V. concerning EP 2 831 787. The Mannheim Local Division granted a partial extension, extending the deadlines for Defendants 3 and 4 until 14 August 2025 to achieve harmonization, but dismissed the request for a longer extension to 15 September 2025, finding the defendants had not sufficiently demonstrated the need for additional time.
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
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim involving EP 3 905 730. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1 and FRAND Counter-Claimant) had stated the value in dispute of its FRAND counterclaim at 4 Mio €, but the court found this largely underestimated since a FRAND license does not relate solely to the patent-in-suit. The court set the value of the overall proceedings on a preliminary basis and ordered Samsung to pay an additional advance on fees, while allowing the parties to comment on the value in dispute until 21 July 2025.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 108 413 in a patent infringement action. The Claimant sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its damages claim to include profits from sales of CeraPUR sealing materials and service/maintenance contracts related to the allegedly infringing CeraFLOW machines. The court held that the original request IV. already encompassed all damages from the alleged infringing acts and permitted the clarifying amendment without needing a R. 263 RoP application, while postponing the remaining aspects of the amendment request until after the oral hearing.
CeraCon GmbH v.Respondent
CeraCon GmbH, the defendant in infringement proceedings and claimant in a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 4 108 413, sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its counterclaim by introducing a new novelty attack based on prior art document EP 3 868 480 A1 (WO 2021/131055). The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, holding that R. 263 RoP applies in full to counterclaims for revocation and that granting leave where a simple prior art search could have revealed the document would effectively allow any later-discovered document to be introduced.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., brought an infringement action against multiple AYLO entities and related companies alleging literal and, alternatively, equivalent indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680, which concerns a method for presenting a rate-adaptive data stream. The defendants filed a counterclaim for invalidity. The Local Chamber Mannheim addressed key legal questions regarding the doctrine of equivalents, the legal interest in isolated removal of dependent subclaims via nullity counterclaims, and the appropriate number of auxiliary requests under Rule 30.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure.
Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 839 403 before the Mannheim Local Division. The Defendants objected to the Claimant's reply, arguing it introduced new Trusted Applications and Samsung Galaxy S25 models without seeking leave to amend the case under R. 263 RoP. The Court held that the reply did not constitute an amendment of the case as it merely provided further illustrative examples of the attacked embodiment, and dismissed the Defendants' requests while postponing the decision on exclusion of impugned submissions until after the oral hearing.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation requested the Mannheim Local Division to issue a warning to the Kodak defendants that non-compliance with the information orders in the judgment of 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023) concerning EP 3 511 174 would result in penalties of up to EUR 30,000 per day. The court rejected the application, holding that the panel had explicitly decided in the main decision not to set a fixed time period for information provision or a penalty amount up-front, and that such matters would be addressed in a subsequent application to impose penalties.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) to classify certain information as confidential under Rule 262A RoP of the Rules of Procedure. The information in question was previously ordered to be provided to the claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.) by a decision of the Local Division Mannheim dated 11 March 2025. The defendants argue that the information contains highly confidential business secrets and have simultaneously lodged an appeal seeking suspensive effect. The claimant opposes the confidentiality request, seeking either dismissal of the request or, alternatively, broader access to the unredacted exhibits for additional named employees.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 4 108 413. The court clarified that the claimant validly chose English as the language of the proceedings by filing its statement of claim in English and designating English pursuant to Art. 49(2) UPCA, since English is the language of the patent-in-suit and the claimant alleged infringement in multiple member states.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 4 074 373 B1 brought by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. against three Advanced Bionics entities. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement, and the plaintiff requested admission of the withdrawal of the action with the defendants' consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and declined to order reimbursement of court fees due to extraordinary circumstances.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 4 050 804. The court determined that the value in dispute had been largely underestimated given the commercial scope of the action, which targeted all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of the defendants and involved a FRAND rate discussion. The value of the infringement action was set to €4,000,000 on a preliminary basis, requiring the claimant to pay an additional advance on fees of €26,000.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The claimant sought to file a further written pleading to respond to new arguments raised by the defendants in their rejoinder, but the judge-rapporteur dismissed this request on 1 April 2025. The claimant then filed an application for review pursuant to R. 333 RoP. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order and rejected the application for panel review, finding the request for a further written submission unfounded.
Discord Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 716 655. The defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V., belong to the same group of companies and requested harmonization of time periods for submitting their Statements of Defence and lodging any Counterclaim for Revocation, to which the claimant consented. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 2 July 2025 for both defendants.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The Claimant, Total Semiconductor, LLC, applied under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its case to include the AM67x product as an additional attacked embodiment, arguing that the Defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had begun offering this new product in Germany after the original Statement of Claim was filed. The Defendants opposed the amendment, contending it could have been made earlier and would unfairly hinder their defence. The Court postponed the final decision on the amendment application until the oral hearing scheduled for 22 and 23 July 2025, while granting the Defendants the opportunity to respond to the amendments in substance.
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.