Granted
at Mannheim (DE) Local Division
16 granted decisions from Mannheim (DE) Local Division.
Granted Decisions
16 cases | Page 1 of 1
InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS v.Amazon.com, Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance in Mannheim addressed a request by Amazon to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court ruled in favor of Amazon, citing principles of fairness and efficiency under Article 49(5) UPCA. This decision highlights the practical application of balancing procedural rights against the needs of international parties in complex patent litigation.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
In a significant ruling concerning SEP licensing and anti-suit injunctions, the UPC Local Division Mannheim confirmed an order preventing Amazon from pursuing contractual claims in UK courts. The applicants (InterDigital) successfully defended their attempt to enforce measures designed to ensure that patent infringement proceedings before the UPC are not undermined by external legal actions. This decision reinforces the UPC's jurisdiction and its ability to manage complex cross-border disputes involving standard-setting organizations.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In this UPC case concerning a semiconductor patent, the court addressed a critical procedural issue: security for costs. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant, a non-practicing entity structured as a licensing company, should provide financial guarantees to cover potential legal expenses. The Court rejected the Claimant's arguments regarding its startup status and co-working space operations, upholding the requirement for security. This decision reinforces the UPC's strict stance on ensuring procedural fairness and cost recovery in infringement actions.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.HMD Global Oy
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application by the Defendant, HMD Global Oy, seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The Court found that while both parties were international entities with comparable resources, the principle dictates that if interests are equal, the position of the non-initiating party (the Defendant) prevails. Consequently, the request for a language change was granted, allowing the case to proceed in English.
Decathlon v.OWIM GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG, Kaufland Marketplace GmbH, Lidl Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request to disregard parts of the Defendants' rejoinder regarding patent validity. The Court emphasized strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure (RoP), ruling that submissions must not exceed the scope permitted for the specific pleading stage. This decision reinforces the importance of procedural discipline within the UPC framework, preventing parties from introducing extraneous arguments or summaries outside the prescribed written procedure.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Nordic AB, Samsung Electronics France SAS, Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the Mannheim Local Division granted requests from all parties to harmonize timelines and service dates in an infringement action concerning EP 2 936 439. The court accepted the agreement to set uniform service dates for all defendants and extended deadlines for filing defenses and replies. This decision underscores the UPC's flexibility in managing proceedings efficiently when parties mutually agree on procedural adjustments.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
In a procedural order concerning cost proceedings, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim ruled in favor of Hurom Co., Ltd., granting protection for confidential information related to legal representation costs. Specifically, the court classified the detailed breakdown of attorneys' hours worked as strictly confidential under R. 262A RoP and Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the principle that professional client-attorney privilege extends to cost documentation within UPC proceedings, safeguarding sensitive operational details.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
In a procedural matter, the UPC granted an extension of time periods in a complex infringement and revocation case involving Fingon LLC and Samsung Electronics. The Defendants successfully argued that they required additional time to analyze new technical arguments introduced by the Claimant, particularly those stemming from third-party software developers. This decision underscores the Court's willingness to grant extensions when parties demonstrate genuine need for further expert or external input, provided it does not unduly delay the proceedings.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company
In this procedural case concerning an Anti-anti-suit Injunction (AASI), the court addressed the defendants' refusal to properly acknowledge service. The claimant argued that the defendants were deliberately obstructing the legal process by limiting their representation and refusing formal acknowledgment of the AASI. The Mannheim Local Chamber ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that such procedural tactics are invalid and constitute a breach of professional conduct. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring proper due process and compliance with its orders within the UPC framework.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement action involving InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company group. The defendants successfully argued that the proceedings should be conducted in English, the language of the patent EP3259902, citing fairness and the business language of the involved parties. The court granted this request, setting a precedent for aligning procedural language with the patent's grant language when supported by all relevant parties.
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 from the Local Division Mannheim, Corning Incorporated successfully obtained a two-week extension of time to file its reply and defense. The court grounded its decision in established UPC case law, recognizing that parties must be compensated for periods where they do not have full access to confidential facts presented by opponents. This ruling reinforces the practical application of procedural fairness within the UPC's confidentiality framework.
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted an extension of time to Palo Alto Networks, Inc., in a patent infringement action brought by Centripetal Ltd. The court recognized that unforeseen global events had created significant logistical obstacles for the defendant's technical team and key personnel. This decision underscores the court's willingness to balance strict adherence to procedural timelines with practical realities faced by parties during exceptional circumstances.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company. The Court granted the request to change the language from German to English, citing fairness and considering all relevant circumstances under Art. 49(5) UPCA. The ruling reinforces that the defendant's position is a decisive factor when weighing interests in such procedural matters.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a complex procedural issue regarding service of process in international UPC cases. The claimant (Panasonic) faced repeated failures when attempting to serve documents on the respondent (Xiaomi HK Limited) via the Hague Service Convention due to political objections by the receiving authority. The court ultimately ruled that since all formal attempts were exhausted and further efforts were futile, the prior steps constituted valid service under Rule 275.2 VerfO. This ruling provides a crucial procedural pathway for claimants facing diplomatic or administrative hurdles in cross-border litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This decision from the Local Division Mannheim addresses a critical procedural hurdle: service of process. The claimant, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, faced repeated failures in serving Xiaomi H.K. Limited due to objections from foreign receiving authorities regarding the naming conventions on the patent documents. The court ultimately ruled that since all formal attempts were exhausted and deemed futile, the prior efforts constituted valid legal notice. This sets a precedent for how UPC proceedings can proceed when external political or administrative barriers prevent traditional service.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a critical procedural hurdle: service of process. The claimant, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, faced repeated failures in serving its infringement claim against Xiaomi H.K. Limited due to objections from foreign receiving authorities regarding the defendant's designation. The court ultimately ruled that since all formal and alternative delivery methods had been exhausted without success, the steps already taken were sufficient to constitute valid service under UPC rules. This ruling provides significant clarity on how courts can overcome jurisdictional barriers caused by external political or administrative refusals during international litigation.
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.