Mannheim (DE) Local Division
161 cases · page 5 of 6
Showing 121–149Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to radio communication devices and methods essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a revocation counterclaim and a FRAND counterclaim seeking court-determined license terms. The Local Chamber Mannheim found partial infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim and the FRAND counterclaim, and ordered the defendants to bear the costs.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Freesites Ltd, Brockwell Group LLC, Bridgemaze Group LLC and others
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected the plaintiffs' (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) applications for production orders requiring defendants to disclose source code of media players used under Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Safari browsers in connection with their streaming services. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient need for the requested source code, as the Microsoft Edge source code was publicly accessible and the plaintiffs could obtain it themselves, while for Safari they should rely on Charles Proxy recordings.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring certain defendants to provide information about the design and encoding scheme of video files accessible through their streaming services. The court rejected the application, finding that the requests constituted impermissible fishing expeditions, that the plaintiffs had not exhausted all reasonably available information sources, and that the current state of the proceedings regarding patent interpretation, infringement, and validity did not justify burdening the defendants with such an information order.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, Brockwell Group LLC, Bridgemaze Group LLC and others
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking information from defendants regarding which Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) they use for their streaming services, the locations of CDN servers, and how video files are encoded on those servers. The court held that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their own investigative possibilities and that the current stage of proceedings regarding patent interpretation, infringement, and validity did not justify burdening the defendants with the requested information order.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected the plaintiff's application to examine its own party expert as a witness in the oral hearing concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff sought the examination after the close of the interim proceedings, arguing that the deadline for its reply on the FRAND counterclaim was insufficient to address the opposing party's expert opinion. The court held that the application was procedurally improper and that the named person was not to be examined as a witness but rather to present expert opinions, which is not permissible under the Rules of Procedure.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court on September 16, 2024, in case UPC_CFI_210/2023 concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, sets out preparations for the oral hearing, including scheduling, hearing structure, participation logistics, language arrangements, and the value in dispute. The value in dispute was set at over 50 million euros, taking into account the defendants' FRAND counterclaim and the plaintiff's related applications.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court on September 16, 2024, in preparation for the oral hearing in case UPC_CFI_219/2023 concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff Panasonic Holdings Corporation is pursuing infringement claims against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies. The order sets out the structure of the hearing, covering technical aspects (including validity and infringement) on the first day and FRAND-related issues on the second day, along with logistical arrangements for participation, language, and submissions.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH et al.
This case concerns a review under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. The defendants (multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies) sought review of the reporting judge's order that only partially extended their deadline to file a rejoinder (Duplik) to the plaintiff's reply (Replik) on non-technical (FRAND) aspects. The court rejected the defendants' application, holding that the granted extension was adequate and that the full two-month period does not automatically restart from the date access to unredacted confidential information is granted.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH et al.
This order concerns a confidentiality protection application under Rule 262A RoP in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The Local Chamber Mannheim ruled that the defendants' submissions regarding two third-party license agreements, filed late in the Duplik, would be disregarded under Rule 9.2 RoP, and rejected the defendants' subsidiary request for production orders against a former defendant (a Hong Kong-based group company). The court held that parties must seek confidentiality protection and production orders early enough to make submissions within applicable deadlines.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi H.K. Limited regarding European Patent EP 2 568 724 before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The court addressed the issue of service of process when the Hague Service Convention receiving authority in Hong Kong refused service because the plaintiff referred to the defendant's location as 'Hong Kong' rather than the politically preferred 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.' The court ruled that all formal service methods under Rules 270-274 had been exhausted and ordered alternative service under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure, along with publication of the order on the court's homepage.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action against Xiaomi H.K. Limited before the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 2 207 270. After all formal service attempts under Rules 270-274 of the Rules of Procedure and the Hague Service Convention failed—because the Hong Kong receiving authority refused service on political grounds regarding the designation of Hong Kong—the court ordered alternative service under Rule 275.2 RoP, recognizing the steps already taken as valid service and ordering publication of the order on the court's homepage.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on July 31, 2024, concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315, holding that all formal service attempts on Xiaomi H.K. Limited had been exhausted after the Hong Kong receiving authority refused to serve the documents on political grounds related to the designation of the defendant's address. The court ordered alternative service under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure, recognizing the steps already taken as valid service, and directed publication of the order on the court's homepage.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 028 981. The defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) filed a Rule 9 RoP application requesting permission to submit video recordings (Exhibits D 7b and D 7c) on USB sticks because their file size exceeded the CMS upload limit. The court granted the request and provided detailed procedural instructions for submitting physical exhibits.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd and Others
This case concerns a dispute before the Local Chamber Mannheim regarding confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 479 680. The defendants (AYLO entities) sought review of the Rapporteur's confidentiality order, arguing that three natural persons named by the plaintiffs should be excluded from accessing confidential information about the operation of the accused embodiments. The panel rejected the application, confirming the Rapporteur's order and finding that the plaintiffs have a legitimate interest in involving persons familiar with the relevant IP and technology.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others (UPC_CFI_219/2023)
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation regarding information contained in its reply and annexes related to European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants, comprising multiple Xiaomi entities, Odiporo GmbH, and Shamrock Mobile GmbH, contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for their legal representatives across parallel proceedings. The court issued a final order classifying certain license agreement and negotiation information as confidential while restricting access to specified legal representatives and approved personnel, rejecting the more expansive requests of both parties.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered the referral of a counterclaim for revocation and the corresponding patent amendment request to the Central Chamber Paris. The court reasoned that since nearly all attacks against the patent in suit (EP 4 074 373) were already being pursued in a prior central revocation action filed by the first defendant, efficiency considerations favored having the Central Chamber decide on the counterclaim as well. The defendants' objections regarding the risk of divergent decisions, change of language, and the advanced stage of the central proceedings were rejected.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others (UPC_CFI_219/2023)
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation regarding information contained in its unredacted reply and annexes, particularly relating to patent license agreements and negotiations. The defendants, multiple Xiaomi entities and other companies, contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for their attorneys in parallel proceedings. The court issued a final order classifying certain information as confidential, limiting access to specified persons, and rejecting further requests beyond the preliminary order.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement case involving EP 2 568 724. The court partially granted Panasonic's confidentiality requests regarding license negotiations and third-party patent license agreements, while rejecting broader requests. The court defined the scope of the confidentiality club, allowing access to procedural representatives in Mannheim and Munich proceedings and three named reliable persons.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 568 724, addressing Panasonic's request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure regarding information contained in its unredacted reply and annexes, as well as licensing negotiations between the parties. The defendants (OPPO) contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for additional personnel and external counsel. The court granted partial confidentiality protection, defining a limited confidentiality club and restricting use of the protected information to UPC proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
Order of the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC_CFI_210/2023 concerning patent EP2568724 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court granted the defendant's requests for extension of time (App_39329/2024 and App_39331/2024), extending deadlines for filing the duplik on the rejoinder regarding FRAND and the rejoinder on the reply to the FRAND counterclaim from July 17, 2024 to August 14, 2024.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies. The order provides technical and legal guidance to the parties on issues relating to infringement (features 1.1, 1.3.2, and 1.3.3), validity (novelty attacks based on prior art documents FBD-T11a, T11b, T13, and T14), and the plaintiff's request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The parties were given until July 19, 2024 to submit comments on the points raised.
AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This case concerns an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning EP 2 479 680. The defendants (AYLO entities) sought to restrict the plaintiffs' (DISH entities) access to information about video streaming processes disclosed in their reply and a witness statement. The court partially granted the application, classifying the streaming-related information as confidential and limiting access on the plaintiffs' side to their legal representatives, internal assistants, external experts upon request, and three specifically named corporate employees.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, relating to LTE mobile communication technology. The court issued directions and questions to the parties regarding claim interpretation under Rule 13(1)(n) RoP, the patent proprietor's response to the nullity counterclaim, the strict preclusion rule under Rule 30.2 RoP for patent amendments, and the legal interest (Rechtsschutzbedürfnis) for the defendants' FRAND counterclaim seeking determination of license rates.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 568 724, in which Panasonic Holdings Corporation sues multiple Xiaomi entities and other defendants. The defendants sought an extension of deadlines for their Duplik, Replik to the revocation counterclaim, and response to the patent amendment request until August 6, 2024, citing delayed access to the plaintiff's redacted FRAND-related submissions. The court partially granted the extension until July 19, 2024 for the FRAND-related submissions but rejected the extension regarding the technical aspects of the case, and ordered that further main submissions be filed in a single coherent final version.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 3096315, in which the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) sought production of various license agreements under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure to support their FRAND defense. The court rejected the defendants' production requests as overly broad fishing expeditions, while reserving the right to issue production orders at a later stage depending on further submissions.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. (UPC_CFI_218/2023)
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered the severance of proceedings under Rule 303.2 RoP in a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315 against multiple Xiaomi-related defendants. The court separated the proceedings against the four defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong (Defendants 1, 2, 7, and 8), whose complaints had not yet been served, from the main proceedings against the remaining defendants already represented by counsel, to allow the main case to proceed without delay.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. (UPC_CFI_223/2023)
Order of the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court dated May 6, 2024, concerning EP 2 207 270, separating the proceedings against four Xiaomi defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong from the main proceedings. The separation was ordered under Rule 303.2 RoP because service to those defendants must be effected abroad via the Hague Service Convention, which would delay the proceedings, while the remaining defendants were already represented by counsel.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. (EP 2 568 724)
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The court ordered the separation of proceedings against defendants 1, 2, 7, and 8 (Xiaomi entities based in China and Hong Kong) from the main proceedings, because service abroad under the Hague Service Convention would take considerable time and would delay the proceedings against the other defendants who were already represented by counsel.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 2 568 724, a standard-essential patent (SEP). Panasonic Holdings Corporation, the plaintiff, sought a court order directing itself to produce two specific license agreements, as it was prevented from voluntarily submitting them due to confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the production of both license agreements, allowing redactions of passages not relied upon by Panasonic in its factual allegations and legal arguments, while rejecting further requests.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Panasonic Holdings Corporation, the plaintiff in a standard-essential patent (SEP) infringement action concerning EP 3 096 315 before the Local Chamber Mannheim, sought a court order directing itself to submit two license agreements that it could not voluntarily disclose due to confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the submission of both license agreements, permitting redactions of passages not relied upon by Panasonic for its factual allegations and legal arguments, while rejecting further requests.
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.