Mannheim (DE) Local Division
161 cases · page 6 of 6
Showing 151–160Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270 in a standard-essential patent (SEP) dispute. Panasonic Holdings Corporation, as plaintiff, sought a production order directed against itself to compel the submission of two license agreements whose disclosure was restricted by confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the production of both license agreements, permitting redactions of passages not relied upon by the plaintiff, while rejecting further requests.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics Sarl v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This order concerns an application by the defendants (Advanced Bionics entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by MED-EL regarding European Patent EP4074373 ('MRI-safe disk magnet for implants'). The President of the Court of First Instance declared the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that the circumstances cited by the defendants resulted from their own strategic choices and did not demonstrate significant disadvantage justifying a change of language.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding European Patent EP 2 568 724, deciding 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' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3)(a) UPCA to combine these proceedings for reasons of efficiency and procedural economy.
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 European Patent EP 3 096 315. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) UPCA, 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' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's nascent operational situation.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl
Unified Patent Court decision.
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 Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH
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) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, to jointly hear the infringement action together with the counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's early operational stage.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S. & Ors.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2568724 in proceedings between Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and multiple Xiaomi group entities as defendants. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court to order that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, together with a FRAND-related counterclaim under Article 33(3)(a), be heard jointly. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's nascent operational situation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, in which Panasonic Holdings Corporation (plaintiff) brought an infringement action against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (defendants). The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 RoP in conjunction with Art. 33(3) UPCA, to jointly hear the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim rather than bifurcating the proceedings.
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 from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 3096315, in which Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued multiple Xiaomi entities for patent infringement. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, to jointly hear the infringement action together with the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license, rather than bifurcating the proceedings.
Panasonic Holding Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
The court established a comprehensive confidentiality regime for the protection of confidential information, particularly relating to licence agreements concerning standard essential patents. The court declined to issue a court order for document production at this early stage, instead requiring parties to obtain consent from third-party licence agreement partners. A detailed 13-step procedure was outlined for handling confidential documents through the Case Management System.
Panasonic Holding Corporation v.Xiaomi Techniligy Germany GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.