Mannheim (DE) Local Division
164 cases · page 6 of 6
Showing 151–163Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Panasonic Holdings Corporation for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure regarding information contained in the unredacted version of its reply and attachments, as well as negotiations between the parties, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants (OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.) objected to the scope of the requested confidentiality regime, arguing it should extend to all related proceedings, permit information sharing with external counsel in parallel UK proceedings, and allow additional employees access. The matter was decided by the Presiding and Reporting Judge Dr. Tochtermann of the Local Chamber Mannheim.
OROPE Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order extending the defendant's deadlines for filing its reply to the rejoinder on the FRAND-related statement of defense and its rejoinder on the response to the FRAND counterclaim. The deadlines, originally set to expire on July 17, 2024, were extended to August 14, 2024, following the final decision on the confidentiality protection regime. The court found the extension necessary and sufficient for the defendant to take a final position on the FRAND aspect of the dispute.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued multiple Xiaomi entities and other defendants for patent infringement. The order provides technical guidance and questions to the parties to structure further proceedings, particularly addressing the defendants' arguments regarding non-infringement of specific patent features related to LTE standard implementations involving PUCCH and SRS transmissions.
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This order concerns a dispute over access restrictions under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 479 680. Defendants AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYLO Freesites Ltd sought to restrict the plaintiffs' (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) access to confidential information contained in their reply to the complaint dated 13 May 2024 and the attached annex BPV 5. The defendants argued that access should be limited to a maximum of three reliable natural persons on the plaintiffs' side, excluding their legal representatives, and that the three in-house counsel named by the plaintiffs were unsuitable due to the risk of misuse of confidential information for the plaintiffs' patent monetization program.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, relating to LTE mobile communication technology. The court, through presiding judge and rapporteur Dr. Tochtermann, provided directions to the parties regarding claim interpretation requirements under Rule 13(1)(n) RoP, the need for the patent proprietor to anchor revocation counterclaim responses in specific claim features, the strict preclusion regime of Rule 30.2 RoP for later patent amendment requests, and the legal interest requirement for a FRAND license rate determination counterclaim seeking declaratory relief.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural matters in three parallel patent infringement proceedings before the Local Chamber Mannheim involving European Patent EP 2 568 724 and related patents. The defendants, including multiple Xiaomi entities and other companies, requested an extension of deadlines for their reply submissions, rejoinder to the counterclaim for revocation, and response to the patent amendment request until August 6, 2024. The order also addresses ongoing issues regarding the confidentiality regime, particularly the number of persons authorized to access confidential information on the defendants' side, following the plaintiff's filing of redacted replies and supplementary submissions concerning FRAND-related comparison licenses.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns the defendants' application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of documents in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3096315. The defendants, OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., sought production of various license agreements (including those designated 'X' and 'Y') that the plaintiff Panasonic Holdings Corporation relied upon as reference points in FRAND negotiations, as well as other 3G/4G SEP license agreements. The order was issued by the presiding and reporting judge Dr. Tochtermann of the Local Chamber Mannheim, addressing the procedural status of the production requests following the plaintiff's unredacted submissions on the FRAND aspect.
UPC Decision UPC-001501 v.Respondent
This order concerns the severance of proceedings under Rule 303.2 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities and other defendants concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315. The Local Chamber Mannheim ordered the separation of the proceedings against Defendants 1, 2, 7, and 8 (located in China and Hong Kong) from the main proceedings, because service on these defendants must be effected abroad under the Hague Service Convention and will take considerable time. The court found severance appropriate since the representatives of the other defendants confirmed they were not mandated by the China/Hong Kong defendants, and prior attempts to treat service on Defendant 3 as effective for all defendants had been rejected.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation, plaintiff in a standard-essential patent infringement action concerning EP 3 096 315, sought a court production order directed against itself to compel the disclosure of two specific license agreements. The plaintiff argued that confidentiality clauses in those agreements prevented voluntary production, and that its license partners had either failed to respond or refused consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order providing fundamental guidance on the requirements for production orders in standard-essential patent disputes, following the Reporting Judge's prior directions of March 19, 2024 and the plaintiff's responsive statement of April 15, 2024.
Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics Sarl v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MANNHEIM pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 15/04/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1. Advanced Bionics AG Laubisrütistrasse 28 8712 Stäfa Swi
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Inc. , Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Softw
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2207270. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) UPCA, to hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and FRAND licensing together rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The court reasoned that joint hearing promotes efficiency, allows for a unified interpretation by the same panel, and is justified given the court's early operational stage and the part-time availability of some panel members.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. , OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license under Art. 33(3)(a) EPGÜ. The court further directed the Reporting Judge to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Panasonic Holding Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
1 Local division Mannheim UPC_CFI_210/2023 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 February 2024 here: Application for production of documents and protection of confidential information acc. to R. 190/191, 262, 262A RoP Patent at issue Patent
Panasonic Holding Corporation v.Xiaomi Techniligy Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-08) under reference UPC-001666, Panasonic Holding Corporation appeared in dispute with Xiaomi Techniligy Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.