Mannheim (DE) Local Division
164 cases · page 3 of 6
Showing 61–89Faro 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.
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 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.
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.