Mannheim (DE) Local Division
164 cases · page 5 of 6
Showing 121–149DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.Cloudflare. Inc.
This order concerns a side proceeding in which the plaintiffs (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) sought information from a third party, Cloudflare Inc., under Rule 191 Alt. 2 of the Rules of Procedure in connection with the main infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680. The rapporteur addressed the plaintiffs' request that he determine that the sought information is not decisive for the decision, combined with a conditional withdrawal of the information request. The court held that such a request for a preliminary determination is inadmissible, but that the conditional withdrawal is to be interpreted as making the information request itself conditional on the information being decisive, and that such an internal procedural condition is permissible even when the information is sought from a non-party.
AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB v.Respondent
This order concerns an application under Rule 262 of the Rules of Procedure by the law firm AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB seeking access to all written submissions and evidence filed in a completed patent infringement case between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO/OROPE concerning EP 2 568 724. The applicant cited a general information interest and a specific scientific interest, as one of its lawyers was working on a commentary on the Unitary Patent system. Panasonic opposed the request as too indefinite and disproportionate, while the defendants did not file observations. The court began its reasoning by applying the guidelines developed by the Court of Appeal in UPC_CoA_404/2023, weighing the effort required for access against the applicant's interests in this particularly complex and voluminous case.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 before the Local Division Mannheim. The panel decided to separate the proceedings with respect to national parts of the traditional European bundle patent that were not yet ready for decision, particularly those concerning non-UPC countries (Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), pending the European Court of Justice's decision in Case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation. The court reasoned that withholding a decision on the merits for national parts over which it had jurisdiction would unjustifiably delay enforcement of the claimant's potential patent rights.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Hurom Co., Ltd. against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1. The Local Division Mannheim addressed the question of which substantive law applies to alleged infringing acts of traditional European bundle patents in relation to the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The court held that the UPCA substantive law applies to acts committed after 1 June 2023 and to ongoing acts that continued after that date, while substantive national laws apply to acts committed before that date. The court also ruled that the right to information under the UPCA encompasses time periods predating the entry into force of the UPCA.
Applicant v.Defendant
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_142/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 March 2025 Applicant […] represented by: […] electronic address for service: […] Defendant […] PATENT AT ISSUE: […] PANEL/DIVISION: Lo
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a jointly filed counterclaim for revocation before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The parties, Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and several Xiaomi entities along with Odiporo GmbH and Shamrock Mobile GmbH as defendants, reached a settlement and jointly withdrew their respective claims regarding European Patent EP 3069315. The court issued the order in accordance with the parties' jointly expressed will and addressed the reimbursement of court fees, granting a 40% reimbursement and rejecting the request for a higher 60% reimbursement.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order following the parties' settlement, resulting in the withdrawal of the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against several Xiaomi entities and other defendants, as well as the joint nullity counterclaim filed by the defendants. The court confirmed the parties' agreement and addressed the cost consequences, including an increase in the dispute value from 4 to 8 million euros, which led to additional court fees owed by the plaintiff.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The parties reached a settlement and jointly filed applications on December 20, 2024, to withdraw the proceedings following the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ruled that each party bears its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 548 648, which relates to a mill for crushing/grinding material, particularly wood chips. Both parties are providers of forestry machinery. The plaintiff, Rematec GmbH & Co KG, as the proprietor of the patent, alleged that the defendant, Europe Forestry B.V., infringed the patent by selling mills marketed as 'Europe Grinders' and 'Europe Chip Mills.' The defendant raised a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim held an oral hearing on November 27, 2024, and rendered its decision on January 31, 2025.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
This is a preparatory order issued by the Mannheim Local Division in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 476 616, brought by FUJIFILM Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order sets out preliminary views and questions ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 11–13 February 2025, addressing issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law for pre- and post-UPCA infringing acts, the value of the dispute, prior use defences, and validity questions concerning prior art documents WO 379 and US 952.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 511 174, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese for its representatives at the oral hearing, which the Kodak defendants opposed. The court allowed FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense but declined to make the interpretation costs part of the proceedings' costs.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, brought by Fujifilm Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order, issued in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 11-13 February 2025, sets out preliminary views and questions on key issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law (UPCA versus national law), the value of the dispute, priority and prior use rights, the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and infringement by the SONORA XTRA-3 product.
pharma-aktiva GmbH, Hofer Kommanditgesellschaft, ALDI Nord Deutschland Stiftung & Co. KG, ALDI SE & Co. KG, ALDI SÜD Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. oHG v.G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG, a pharmaceutical company marketing the head lice treatment NYDA®, filed an application for preliminary measures against pharma-aktiva GmbH and several ALDI group entities (ALDI SÜD, ALDI Nord, ALDI SE & Co. KG, and Hofer KG) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 1 993 363 B1, which concerns a composition for combating ectoparasites and their eggs. The applicant challenged the sale of a competing lice spray marketed as 'Vitalis Läuse Spray' in Germany and 'ACTIV MED Läusespray' in Austria. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on December 20, 2024, following an oral hearing on December 12, 2024, addressing the application for interim measures under Rule 206 RoP.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on November 22, 2024, rejecting the defendants' application for a stay of proceedings and cancellation of the scheduled pronouncement date, as well as their alternative application for postponement of the pronouncement to at least December 6, 2024. The court found that the requirements for a stay under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure were not met, particularly because there was no joint application from both parties, as the plaintiff had expressly opposed the stay. The case concerns European Patent EP 2 568 724.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought an infringement action against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Court of First Instance rendered its decision on November 22, 2024, following an oral hearing on October 7 and 8, 2024. A redacted version of the decision was subsequently ordered on February 6, 2025, after the parties were given the opportunity to comment on confidential information.
Sling TV L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680. The claimants, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., sought an order under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of source code of media players used under Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Safari browsers by certain defendants operating streaming services. The underlying main proceedings concern alleged indirect patent infringement in multiple European countries, with the defendants having filed counterclaims for invalidity.
Sling TV L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an information order against several AYLO entities and related companies regarding the encoding and coding scheme of video files available through their streaming services. The underlying main proceedings involve alleged indirect patent infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680 in multiple European countries, with the defendants having filed counterclaims for invalidity. The rapporteur judge Böttger issued the order in the Local Chamber Mannheim.
Sling TV L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Respondent
The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., sought an order under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure requiring defendants AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC to disclose information about which Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) they use or have used since August 28, 2019 for delivering video files through their streaming services, the locations of CDN servers, and how the video files are encoded and split. The underlying main proceedings concern alleged indirect patent infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680 in multiple European territories, with defendants having filed counterclaims for invalidity. The order was issued by the reporting judge Böttger of the Local Chamber Mannheim.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on September 17, 2024, rejecting the plaintiff's application to examine its own party expert as a witness in the oral hearing. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sought this examination in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724 against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., arguing that the deadline for its replication on the FRAND counterclaim was insufficient to address the defendants' expert opinion. The court held that the application was filed after the close of the interim proceedings and that the procedure of examining one's own party expert as a witness is not provided for in the Rules of Procedure.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
This is an interim procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the preparation of oral hearings in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, is proceeding against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The order sets out the scheduling and structural framework for the oral hearing, dividing it into a first day dedicated to technical issues (uniform interpretation of the patent, validity, and infringement by standard) and a second day addressing FRAND-related matters, including the FRAND counterclaim.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the preparation and structuring of the oral hearing in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sues several Xiaomi entities and other defendants. The presiding judge coordinated the hearing date and provided detailed instructions on the structure of the proceedings, with the first day dedicated to technical aspects (uniform interpretation of the patent, validity, and standard-essential infringement) and the second day to FRAND-related issues.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a review under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in three parallel proceedings relating to European Patents EP 2 568 724, EP 2 207 270, and EP 2 315. The defendants challenged the rapporteur's order that only partially granted their request to extend the deadline for filing a rejoinder to the plaintiff's reply on the non-technical (FRAND) part. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on the review of the time-limit extension request.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L v.Respondent
This order concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants had submitted three third-party license agreements with their rejoinder and sought access restrictions exceeding the previously established confidentiality regime. The Local Chamber Mannheim, presided by Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, issued an order with access restrictions corresponding to the existing confidentiality regime, falling short of the defendants' newly requested restrictions for two of the license agreements.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the service of a patent infringement complaint on Xiaomi H.K. Limited in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 207 270. The Local Chamber Mannheim addressed the question of alternative service under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure after service attempts via the Hague Service Convention were refused by the requested state's central authority. The court established principles regarding when alternative service is permissible, the absence of judicial censorship of party submissions, and the publication requirements for orders recognizing prior service steps as valid service.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns service-of-process issues in a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi H.K. Limited regarding European Patent EP 3 096 315. The defendant had been separated from the main proceedings because service at the Düsseldorf address of Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH was unsuccessful, and the Hague Service Convention Central Authority of the requested state had refused service on political grounds. The Local Chamber Mannheim held that no further alternative service attempt under Rule 275.1 is required once Rules 270–274 have been exhausted and the Central Authority has definitively refused service, and ordered that the prior service steps be recognized as valid service, with publication on the court's homepage.
WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a Rule 9 RoP application by the defendants in a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 028 981. The defendants sought permission to submit video recordings (Exhibits D 7b and D 7c) referenced in their statement of defence on USB sticks, as the files exceeded the maximum upload size for the CMS. The judge-rapporteur granted permission to submit the physical exhibits but directed the defendants to follow the prescribed procedure for registering physical exhibits to the CMS via a separate application workflow.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.Respondent
This order concerns a dispute over confidentiality protection and access restrictions in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 2 479 680. The defendants (AYLO entities) had requested access restrictions under Rule 262A RoP regarding information about the functioning of the accused embodiments contained in their reply. The Rapporteur issued a confidentiality order on 03.07.2024 granting access to the plaintiffs' legal representatives and three named natural persons. The defendants sought review under Rule 333 RoP, arguing that the three named individuals should be excluded because they are responsible for strategic decisions in parallel US proceedings and could not disregard the confidential information once obtained.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued a procedural order referring both the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and the plaintiff's auxiliary request for patent amendment to the Central Chamber Paris. The referral was granted because nearly all attacks raised in the counterclaim were already being pursued in an earlier central revocation action filed by Defendant 1, making parallel proceedings before two different panels inefficient. The court rejected the defendants' objections regarding the risk of divergent decisions, language change costs, and the advancement of central proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for information contained in its unredacted reply and attachments, as well as for negotiations between the parties, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The Local Chamber Mannheim had previously issued an interim order on April 30, 2024, provisionally classifying certain information regarding patent license agreements and related negotiations as confidential. The presiding judge Dr. Tochtermann issued the present order addressing the scope of confidentiality protection in connection with Panasonic's application for production of evidence.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerns the referral of a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 4 074 373 to the Central Chamber Paris. The plaintiff MED-EL filed an infringement action against three Advanced Bionics entities, and defendants 2 and 3 counterclaimed for revocation. Because nearly identical revocation attacks were already pending before the Central Chamber Paris (filed earlier by Defendant 1), the Local Chamber exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) of the UPC Agreement to refer the counterclaim to the Central Chamber for consolidated proceedings.
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.