Denied
at Mannheim (DE) Local Division
42 denied decisions from Mannheim (DE) Local Division.
Denied Decisions
42 cases | Page 1 of 2
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the Local Division Mannheim rejected Centripetal Limited's attempt to reopen an oral hearing and compel Defendants (Keysight Technologies) to provide source code. The Court emphasized that reopening hearings is a rare exception, not a mechanism for introducing new infringement arguments after proceedings have closed. The decision underscores the strict procedural discipline within the UPC, requiring claimants to raise all substantive issues during the written phase.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V., Solvest Participatie V B.V., Solvest Participatie VI B.V., Solvest Participatie VII B.V., Solvink B.V., De Kleine Beuk B.V., Hemtech d.o.o.
In this preliminary objection case, Honeywell challenged jurisdictional and competence arguments raised by multiple defendants against its infringement suit concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Local Division Mannheim rejected all objections, clarifying key aspects of UPC jurisdiction. The court held that the requirements for local division competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA are met without needing an extra 'connection,' and affirmed that liability can extend to instigators even if they are not domiciled in the EU.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this provisional measures case, Centripetal Limited sought a Saisie order to monitor Palo Alto Networks' network security solution for potential infringement of EP 3 281 580. Although the Court of Appeal had previously allowed an ex-parte hearing and referred the matter back, the CFI ultimately revoked the Saisie order and rejected the application for preserving evidence. The court emphasized its right to review provisional measures based on new facts, even after a referral from the CoA.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request for drastic penalties following an attempted evidence seizure (Saisie). The court confirmed that while the Applicant sought monitoring of Palo Alto Networks' network security solution, the Defendant was not found to be in breach. The core legal principle established is that inspection orders are strictly limited to what exists at the specified premises; they cannot compel a defendant to actively set up or procure non-present systems or documentation.
Robert Bosch GmbH v.Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG
In this UPC case, Robert Bosch GmbH sued Grizzly Tools and related entities for infringement of EP 3 030 383 across multiple EU states, including non-EPCU members like Poland, Spain, and the UK. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction over these foreign territories. The Mannheim Local Division decisively rejected these objections, affirming that the UPC possesses international competence to handle claims related to non-EPCU member states, consistent with recent CJEU jurisprudence (BSH Hausgeräte). This ruling reinforces the broad jurisdictional reach of the unified patent system.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In a procedural order, the Local Division in Mannheim rejected Keysight Technologies' request to stay infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 821 580. The defendant sought a stay based on a preliminary EPO opinion suggesting the patent suffered from added matter. However, the UPC court determined that the case was ripe for hearing and that waiting would cause undue delay, preferring to proceed with its own decision-making process.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.; Blankenhorn GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application concerning court fees following the withdrawal of an interim measure claim. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought a partial refund of legal costs after withdrawing its action against one respondent. The Mannheim Local Court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing that the relevant fee reimbursement rules are designed for full lawsuits and do not apply to applications for provisional measures. This ruling serves as a reminder of the strict procedural boundaries governing cost recovery in UPC proceedings.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected Centripetal Limited's request for a final written brief in an ongoing infringement action. The claimant sought to introduce a substantially new functionality reading late in the proceedings. The Panel ruled that allowing such a late submission would violate procedural fairness and compromise the preparation time for the upcoming oral hearing, thereby maintaining the original rejection order.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case concerning EP 4 108 413 addressed a request by the counterclaim claimant to amend its revocation proceedings by introducing new prior art. The court rejected this application, reinforcing strict rules regarding the late introduction of evidence under Rule 263 RoP. The decision highlights the importance of due diligence in patent searches and the procedural necessity of preventing undue delay or prejudice to the defendant's defense.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
This UPC decision from Mannheim addresses a procedural motion concerning cost allocation arising from an appeal against a process security order. The court ruled that costs related to defending or challenging such procedural orders cannot be determined separately under Rule 150 of the Rules of Procedure (VerfO). Instead, they must be integrated into the final overall cost assessment following the substantive judgment. Crucially, the application was also deemed moot because the main decision had already established a unified approach to costs.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural challenge raised by Discord Inc. and its subsidiary, arguing that the claimant, Malikie Innovations Ltd., failed to comply with German national requirements (Sec. 25 GPA) regarding the appointment of a domestic representative. The Mannheim Local Division rejected this defense, establishing that national procedural rules like Sec. 25 GPA do not govern proceedings before the UPC due to the exhaustive nature of the UPC's own procedural law. This ruling reinforces the principle that the UPC operates independently of specific national jurisdictional formalities.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order addressed a penalty application filed by Centripetal Limited against Palo Alto Networks following an attempted inspection (saisie) under UPC authority. The Claimant sought penalties because the Defendant allegedly refused to grant access to monitor its network security systems. However, the Court found that the scope of the original inspection order was limited strictly to what was physically present at the premises. Since the requested technical setup and documentation were not available in the sales office, the Defendant's non-compliance could not constitute a breach, leading to the rejection of the penalty request.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by Malikie Innovations Ltd. to harmonize time periods related to a counterclaim for revocation (CCR) filed by Discord Inc. The court rejected the extension request, confirming that the deadlines would proceed based on the actual date of service of the CCR within the main infringement workflow. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural rules regarding when defense and amendment periods commence in UPC proceedings.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request by Kodak defendants seeking enhanced confidentiality protections for information disclosed during enforcement proceedings following an earlier infringement judgment. The court rejected these requests, emphasizing that such confidentiality issues should have been raised and addressed within the original merits proceedings. The ruling reinforces the principle that existing judicial limitations on information use are often sufficient, preventing parties from using tactical procedural applications to secure retroactive secrecy.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures regarding EP 4 001 835, the court denied a request by PMT Technologies to postpone the oral hearing. The ruling emphasized the inherent urgency of interim relief proceedings, stating that scheduling conflicts, such as vacation, do not automatically justify postponement. However, the court provided flexibility by allowing for participation via video conference.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a request for panel review concerning an intended enforcement warning related to EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm Corporation sought to impose daily penalties on the Kodak defendants for non-compliance with previous court orders (destruction, recall, removal from commerce). The Panel ultimately rejected this review request, affirming that the original decision was legally sound. This ruling reinforces the procedural boundaries of UPC panel reviews, clarifying that detailed penalty setting must occur in a subsequent application rather than being altered during a review of the main judgment.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this procedural order, Centripetal Limited sought a preservation of evidence (Saisie) against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., alleging highly probable infringement of EP 3 821 580 related to network security solutions. The applicant requested extensive measures, including real-time monitoring and seizure of digital data at the defendant's premises. Despite the case being referred back by the Court of Appeal (CoA), the Local Division in Mannheim ultimately rejected the application for interim measures.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This UPC procedural order addressed a request by the counterclaim claimant (CCR) to introduce new prior art into its revocation proceedings against EP 4 108 413. The CCR sought leave to amend its case based on a newly discovered document, arguing for generous application of amendment rules. However, the Court dismissed the request, reinforcing strict adherence to procedural requirements in counterclaim for revocation actions. The ruling highlights the court's priority of procedural certainty and protecting the defendant from late-stage attacks.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sought a warning from the UPC Local Division Mannheim, requesting that Kodak GmbH and its affiliates pay up to EUR 30,000 per day if they failed to comply with information requests set out in a previous judgment. The court rejected this application, emphasizing that since the original decision retained flexibility regarding timelines and penalties, any enforcement or penalty determination must occur through subsequent applications. This ruling reinforces the procedural approach of the UPC concerning non-compliance warnings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by NUC Electronics and WARMCOOK to impose strict confidentiality measures on information they submitted to the court. The defendants sought protection because they had appealed the underlying decision ordering them to disclose the data. However, the Court ultimately dismissed their request, holding that the existing limitations on how the claimant can use the information are adequate protection under trade secret law. This ruling clarifies the scope of R. 262A RoP when information is provided as part of a merits judgment.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addressed a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to allow further written pleadings in an infringement action against Texas Instruments. The Claimant argued that new and complex technical points raised by the Defendants required additional time for submission. However, the UPC Panel dismissed this review application, emphasizing strict formal requirements for procedural requests under R. 36 RoP. This decision reinforces the court's adherence to established case law regarding the necessary level of substantiation in managing litigation timelines.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This decision addresses an application for rectification filed by Kodak against a previous ruling concerning patent infringement and revocation. The defendants sought to clarify the value in dispute, arguing it should be set separately for the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. However, the UPC Local Division dismissed this request, confirming that the original panel intended the EUR 15 million figure to cover both actions collectively. This case reinforces the strict interpretation of Rule 353 RoP regarding what constitutes an 'obvious slip' or deviation from the court's actual intention.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
In this preliminary ruling concerning an infringement case (UPC_CFI_471/2023), the court addressed a motion by the defendants to introduce arguments and interpretations from a related US patent proceeding. The court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing that differing views on claim scope in foreign proceedings are not admissible for interpreting the European patent claims. This decision reinforces the principle of procedural order within the UPC, requiring parties to present all relevant facts and legal arguments promptly.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim addressed a request by multiple defendant groups (TCL, Hisense, and LG) to split their proceedings due to concerns over disclosing sensitive supply chain information. The Court rejected these requests, holding that conflicts arising from shared counsel must be managed internally by the parties through confidentiality agreements. This decision reinforces the principle of unified litigation in UPC cases unless a clear legal basis for separation is established.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH; Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
In a significant preliminary objection ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim rejected arguments raised by Samsung Electronics challenging its jurisdiction and the validity of the patent assignment. The court held that complex issues concerning ownership and temporal scope must be addressed during the main infringement proceedings, not at the preliminary stage. This decision allows the infringement action to proceed, paving the way for a full examination of the merits and the contested legal arguments regarding the opt-out withdrawal.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
In a key procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected preliminary objections raised by major electronics manufacturers (Hisense, TCL, LG) against Corning Incorporated. The court affirmed its jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, holding that local infringing acts in Germany are sufficient to establish competence, even without proving a direct commercial relationship between the claimant and all defendants. This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings to proceed.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Fujifilm sued Kodak entities for infringing EP 3 476 616, a patent covering lithographic printing plate technology. However, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim delivered a decisive ruling, entirely revoking the patent within Germany. Consequently, the infringement action was dismissed. This case highlights the critical importance of patent validity challenges and the strict procedural requirements for limited defenses under the UPCA.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected the defendants' multiple applications to stay infringement proceedings related to EP 3 296 274. The defendants, representing major electronics groups (Hisense, TCL, LG), argued that joining cases was necessary for a fair trial and due to difficulties in serving parties in China/Hong Kong. The Court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing the lack of an obligation to sue all suppliers jointly. Furthermore, the court issued a procedural order mandating that all parties consolidate their filings into a single workflow to prevent unnecessary delays and administrative burden.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In this procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division, TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC sought permission to file a further written submission, arguing that Defendants had raised complex and new technical points. The Court denied the request, emphasizing that parties must provide detailed substantiation when requesting deviations from the standard written procedure framework (R. 12 RoP). This decision reinforces the need for precision in procedural filings within the UPC.
Applicant v.Defendant
In this procedural order, the Applicant sought to secure and preserve evidence (Saisie) against the Defendant based on a high probability of patent infringement. The court ultimately rejected the request, finding that the applicant's allegations were too vague and lacked sufficient factual detail to meet the threshold for provisional measures. The ruling also questioned the scope of the requested measures, particularly those requiring active participation from the defendant in setting up complex test environments.
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.