Dismissed
at Mannheim (DE) Local Division
13 dismissed decisions from Mannheim (DE) Local Division.
Dismissed Decisions
13 cases | Page 1 of 1
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
In a case involving Huawei and several mobile technology manufacturers, the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Mannheim permitted the claimant to withdraw its infringement action. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to settle or abandon litigation by mutual consent. The court formally closed the proceedings while granting the claimant reimbursement for a portion of the incurred court fees.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed requests from Samsung (Defendants) to introduce new evidence and pleadings related to ongoing license negotiations and third-party agreements. The Court dismissed the broad requests for further written submissions and production orders, citing concerns over 'ping-pong' effects and the timing of the evidence. However, recognizing the dynamic nature of FRAND licensing, the Court granted a limited window for parties to submit briefs on new developments before the oral hearing, ensuring that all relevant facts can be considered during the merits phase.
Sun Patent Trust v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
In a procedural ruling from the Mannheim Local Court, Sun Patent Trust withdrew its infringement claim against multiple defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings. The parties reached an agreement regarding the termination of the case and cost allocation. While the core dispute was dropped, the court confirmed the withdrawal and ordered a partial refund of the initial court fees to the claimant.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In a significant decision for cybersecurity IP, the UPC Local Division Mannheim revoked European Patent EP 3 652 914 B1. The patent, which covered methods for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows using machine learning and threat logs, was invalidated due to lack of inventive step in its amended claims. This revocation led directly to the dismissal of the concurrent infringement action brought by Centripetal Ltd. against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., highlighting the critical interplay between validity challenges and enforcement actions within the UPC framework.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In a significant decision, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed Centripetal Limited's infringement action against Keysight Technologies regarding its patent on efficient network protection. The Court found that the Defendants' products did not infringe the claims of EP 3 821 580 B1. This ruling underscores the high burden of proof required in UPC infringement cases, particularly when dealing with complex technical systems and alternative claim interpretations.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a procedural decision before the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC, Huawei Technologies withdrew its infringement claim against MediaTek. Concurrently, MediaTek's subsidiary also withdrew its counterclaim for revocation of the patent EP 3 567 731. The court formally accepted both withdrawals and declared the proceedings terminated. While no substantive judgment was reached on infringement or validity, the decision provided clarity on procedural matters, including the partial reimbursement of court fees.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation
In this UPC case, Total Semiconductor sued Texas Instruments for infringing a patent related to intelligent interrupt distribution in multiprocessor systems. The court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. While the decision contained important procedural rulings regarding how claimants must substantiate disputed features and limitations on late amendments during oral hearings, it did not reach a definitive finding of infringement or validity.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
In this UPC case, Hurom sued NUC Electronics regarding the alleged infringement of a patent covering a specific type of juice extractor. The proceedings were separated due to the pending ECJ decision on related matters. Ultimately, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed the action for the separated part, citing that the dispute was minor in scope and focused primarily on damages rather than immediate market injunctions.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed Centripetal Limited's request for a further written pleading. The court stressed the importance of adhering to the Rules of Procedure (RoP), stating that pleadings should not be used to introduce new infringement readings late in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to efficient case management and procedural fairness, particularly regarding timely preparation for oral hearings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This Mannheim Local Division decision addresses the complex jurisdictional interplay between the UPC and national courts regarding European bundle patents validated in the UK. The court confirmed that while infringement can be litigated before the UPC, revocation of the UK-validated national part cannot occur with erga omnes effect through the UPC. Crucially, it allowed the validity defense to proceed within the infringement action, but only with inter partes effect. Ultimately, the infringement claim was dismissed due to successful invalidity challenges.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendants (NUC Electronics and WARMCOOK) to impose strict confidentiality measures on information they were required to provide to the claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.). The defendants sought protection pending an appeal against the underlying decision. However, the UPC Local Division Mannheim dismissed this request entirely. The court held that since the information was already subject to inherent usage restrictions tied to the infringement action, and because the defendant must provide the data directly to the claimant, a separate confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP was unnecessary.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
In this UPC case, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. initiated proceedings against Advanced Bionics entities regarding patent EP 4 074 373 B1. However, the parties mutually agreed to withdraw the claim. The court formally granted the withdrawal and terminated the case. This decision highlights how mutual settlements can lead to a swift conclusion of complex UPC litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision from the Mannheim Local Court confirms the withdrawal of an infringement suit brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH. The case, which involved EP 2 568 724, was settled amicably between the parties after a final judgment had already been issued. The court formally closed the proceedings, confirming that each party would cover its own legal expenses.
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.