Denied
at Mannheim (DE) Local Division
42 denied decisions from Mannheim (DE) Local Division.
Denied Decisions
42 cases | Page 2 of 2
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
In this UPC case, Rematec GmbH & Co KG sued Europe Forestry B.V. for infringing its patent covering a grinding mill used for crushing wood chips. The court ultimately declared the European Patent EP 2 548 648 fully invalid across several member states. This decision highlights the rigorous scrutiny applied by the UPC regarding inventive step, particularly when features are found to be obvious in light of existing technical literature.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request for simultaneous interpretation in a complex infringement case involving Fujifilm and Kodak. The Mannheim Local Division ruled that while ensuring fair trial rights necessitates allowing the Claimant to use an interpreter, it firmly rejected the request for the Court to fund these services. The court clarified that since Japanese is not an official language of the division, the financial burden rests solely with the party requesting the interpretation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a motion filed by the defendants (OROPE and OPPO) seeking to suspend the proceedings related to EP 2 568 724 and postpone the announcement date. The court rejected these requests, emphasizing that procedural fairness requires both parties to actively participate in the process. The ruling underscores that unilateral attempts to delay or halt a case without mutual agreement or compelling justification will be unsuccessful.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
In this UPC case concerning streaming technology (EP 2 479 680), the claimants sought an order compelling defendants to disclose detailed information about how their video files are encoded and structured. The court ultimately rejected this request for disclosure. This decision highlights the high threshold required in UPC proceedings before a party can compel another to provide highly specific technical data, emphasizing that such requests must be strictly necessary given the current state of evidence.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Sling TV L.L.C.
In this UPC procedural case (UPC_CFI_471/2023), DISH Technologies and Sling TV sought an order compelling defendants to disclose the source code of their media players used in streaming services. The court ultimately rejected this request, ruling that the balance of interests did not justify forcing the disclosure. This decision highlights the high threshold required for obtaining source code under UPC procedures, emphasizing that claimants must demonstrate a specific, unfulfilled need beyond what can be gathered through existing technical analysis.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
In this UPC case concerning streaming services and CDN usage, the claimants sought court orders compelling defendants to disclose detailed technical information about their Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), including server locations and video file encoding. The Local Court of Mannheim ultimately dismissed these requests for disclosure. This decision highlights the high threshold required in UPC proceedings before a party can successfully compel complex technical evidence from an opposing party, particularly when establishing territorial scope or infringement mechanisms.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this procedural matter, Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought permission to call its expert witness as a formal witness during the oral hearing concerning a FRAND counterclaim. The Mannheim Local Division denied the request, emphasizing that once the interim proceedings are formally concluded, further substantive requests are highly restricted under UPC rules. The court also clarified that an expert's role is to present specialized opinions, which differs fundamentally from providing testimony on disputed facts.
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 decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a procedural dispute concerning deadlines in parallel UPC proceedings involving Xiaomi and Panasonic. The defendants sought an extension of time for their Duplik, arguing that delays caused by confidentiality orders prevented timely preparation. However, the court rejected this request, maintaining that while delayed access must be compensated, it does not automatically entitle the parties to the full statutory period. This ruling reinforces the principle of efficient case management within the UPC framework.
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 decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses procedural requests made by Xiaomi regarding confidentiality protections for third-party license agreements related to EP 2568724. The court denied Xiaomi's request for enhanced access restrictions and preliminary injunctions against a former defendant. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural timelines, stating that parties must act early when seeking complex protective measures like those under Rule 262A VerfO.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a challenge by AYLO PREMIUM LTD against a confidentiality order established under UPC Rules of Procedure (R. 262A VerfO). The dispute centered on whether three individuals named by the claimants should be excluded from accessing confidential information related to the patent infringement case. The court upheld the original order, finding that the respondent did not provide sufficient justification to restrict access, thereby reinforcing the principle of unrestricted access to the core dispute material.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning SEP EP 3096315, the court addressed a request by the defendants for extensive document disclosure related to the claimant's licensing history. The court ultimately rejected most of these requests, finding them too vague or superseded by the parties' own actions. This ruling reinforces the principle that while transparency is important in FRAND negotiations, broad demands for historical portfolio data are not automatically granted and must be narrowly tailored.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application filed by Advanced Bionics to change the language of the infringement action from German to English, citing international business operations and parallel proceedings. The Court rejected this request, holding that strategic choices or internal group coordination do not automatically satisfy the 'reasons of fairness' required for a language change under the UPC Rules of Procedure. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests must demonstrate a concrete disadvantage directly affecting the defense in the specific case, rather than merely reflecting global corporate strategy.
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.