Litigation
at Mannheim (DE) Local Division
161 litigation decisions from Mannheim (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
161 cases | Page 2 of 6
Robert Bosch GmbH v.Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG et al.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected objections filed by the defendants under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure challenging the court's international and territorial jurisdiction over alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 030 383 B1 in non-UPC contracting member states (Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom). The court held that international jurisdiction was established under Article 31 UPCA, Article 71b(1), Article 4(1), and Article 63(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation because all defendants are domiciled in Germany, and that Article 34 UPCA concerns the territorial scope of effects of decisions rather than jurisdiction.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning an application by MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements referenced by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in the context of infringement proceedings regarding EP 3 567 731. The court partially granted the application, ordering Huawei to produce the license agreements it had identified on pages 2 and 3 of its August 15, 2025 submission with its reply to the statement of defense, while rejecting the request for two additional agreements and for ancillary agreements/amendments.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 746 957 before the Local Division Mannheim. Defendants 2 and 3 requested security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant, a recently founded Texas-based licensing entity, lacked sufficient financial resources to satisfy a potential cost reimbursement claim. The judge-rapporteur ordered the Claimant to provide security of EUR 600,000, and the panel rejected the Claimant's request for review under R. 333 RoP, finding the amount appropriate given the complexity of the proceedings and the Defendants' counterclaim for revocation.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager GmbH, Johann Windhager, Stefan Windhager
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court found that Windhager GmbH directly infringed EP 2 223 589 B1, which protects a bed/green area edging with lockable sheet metal strips, by offering and selling such edgings on its website. The court held that offering or supplying all components of a patented product designed for simple assembly at the place of use constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) EPGÜ. The counterclaim for revocation of the patent was dismissed, and the claims against the individual managing directors were rejected.
HMD Global Oy v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (Application No. APP_34862/2025)
HMD Global Oy, the defendant in a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. before the Local Division Mannheim, applied to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language in which the patent EP3667981 was granted). The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, finding that both parties were international companies in comparable situations and that, in the event of an equal balance of interests, the position of the defendant—who had not initiated the action and was bound by strict time limits—must prevail.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Provisional order of the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning a confidentiality request accompanying the defendants' statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 567 731. The court granted confidential treatment to the marked technical information in the defense and counterclaim for revocation, while expanding access to six additional named persons from the claimant's side, but rejected protection for a witness name and excluded one proposed technical expert due to insufficient information.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
The defendants (Keysight) applied to stay UPC infringement and revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 821 580 pending parallel EPO opposition proceedings, citing a preliminary EPO opinion finding added matter. The claimant (Centripetal) opposed the stay, arguing the preliminary opinion was non-binding and that UPC proceedings were well-advanced with an oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the stay request, holding that the case was ripe for a full hearing and that the UPC decision would likely be issued before the EPO's reasoned decision.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. to provide security for costs in the amount of €100,000 to MediaTek Germany GmbH within six weeks. The court found that, as Huawei is domiciled in China (outside the EU/EEA), enforcement of a cost decision would be significantly more difficult, justifying the requirement for security. The amount was set at half of the €200,000 statutory ceiling for reimbursable costs, since the other defendant, MediaTek, Inc., had not yet been served and was not participating in the proceedings.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and Blankenhorn GmbH
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court addressed the allocation of costs in provisional measures proceedings under Article 62 EPGÜ concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835, after the matter became moot between the applicant Faro Technologies and the second respondent Blankenhorn GmbH. Both parties agreed the proceedings were resolved, but disputed who should bear the costs. The court declared the proceedings terminated under Rule 360 RoP and ordered Blankenhorn GmbH to bear the costs, finding that the applicant had reasonable grounds to seek court intervention and that Blankenhorn's cease-and-desist undertaking was insufficient.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and Blankenhorn GmbH
Faro Technologies withdrew its application for provisional measures against PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. concerning EP 4 001 835, and subsequently sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Mannheim rejected the application, holding that Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP applies only to actions and not to applications for provisional measures, and that the fixed court fee for such applications is already significantly reduced.
Decathlon v.OWIM GmbH & Co. KG and Others (EP 1 697 604)
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 697 604. The Claimant (Decathlon) requested that the court disregard portions of the Defendants' rejoinder to the application to amend the patent, which contained arguments regarding the validity of the patent as granted. The court granted the request, holding that such content exceeded the permissible scope of a rejoinder under the Rules of Procedure, and informed the parties of its intention to close the written procedure on 1 September 2025.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH & Others
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action related to EP 2 936 439. All parties agreed to a uniform fictitious service date of 1 September 2025 for all Defendants, avoiding service abroad on Defendant 2 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.). The court granted the agreed extension of procedural deadlines, setting new dates for preliminary objections, statements of defence, and the Claimant's reply.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order concerns a Rule 333 review request by Centripetal Limited seeking to overturn the judge-rapporteur's refusal to allow a further written pleading introducing a fifth infringement reading in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order, rejecting the request on grounds of procedural fairness, timing constraints, and the Claimant's failure to act promptly on functionalities it had known about for some time. Leave to appeal was not granted.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., Ninepoint GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 849 157, in which Defendants 2 to 6 (ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., and Ninepoint GmbH) requested an extension of the time period for filing their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. The court granted a partial extension of approximately one week, extending the deadline to 30 September 2025, finding that the delayed access to the unredacted version of exhibit BB1 (an agreement between the Claimant and its co-owner) warranted only a limited extension since the relevant assertions were already contained in the unredacted statement of claim.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH (EP 4 108 413)
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns a request for review of a judge-rapporteur's order that had dismissed CeraCon GmbH's application to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413 by introducing a new novelty attack based on Euro-PCT application EP 3 868 480 A1. The panel confirmed the earlier order, holding that the amendment was excluded under R. 263.2(a) RoP because CeraCon failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the prior art. The request for review was rejected.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd and Others
This order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerned a defendants' application for cost assessment of attorney fees incurred in an appeal proceeding against an order for security for costs under R. 158 RoP. The court rejected the application as inadmissible, holding that costs arising from procedural orders, including security for cost orders, cannot be assessed in a separate cost assessment proceeding under R. 150 RoP but must instead be included in the overall cost assessment following the substantive decision. The court further held that, in any event, the application had become moot due to the unified cost decision rendered in the substantive decision of 06.06.2025.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns an application by Hurom Co., Ltd. under Rule 262A RoP to classify the breakdown of attorneys' hours worked as confidential information in cost proceedings related to EP 2 028 981. The court held that the breakdown of hours worked qualifies as confidential information protected under R. 262A RoP, as it relates to attorney-client privileged information. However, the court rejected the Applicant's request to restrict access to only the Respondents' lawyers, holding that such restriction would violate the Respondents' right to be heard under R. 262A.6 RoP.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_162/2024) relating to European Patent EP 2 028 981. The court partially granted the Defendant's request for an extension of time to comment on the Claimant's penalty payment request, extending the deadline by two weeks (until 20 August 2025) instead of the three weeks requested. The court reasoned that the discretion to extend time periods must be exercised narrowly, and that the time needed to remedy information deficiencies is distinct from the time needed to comment on a penalty request.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The court dismissed the Claimant's (Centripetal Limited) request under Rule 36 RoP for a further written pleading, holding that the front-loaded procedure under the Rules of Procedure does not permit the introduction of new infringement readings at this stage of the proceedings.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 in an infringement action brought by Powermat Technologies, Ltd. against multiple Anker entities and Fantasia Trading LLC. The defendants filed a conditional request to stay the infringement proceedings pending the resolution of their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich Local Division. The court postponed its decision on the stay request until after the oral hearing on the merits.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V.
The Mannheim Local Division dismissed an application by Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. seeking to bar Malikie Innovations Ltd.'s infringement action concerning EP 3 716 655 in relation to Germany. Discord argued that Malikie, lacking a residence or establishment in Germany, had failed to appoint a domestic representative under Sec. 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), rendering the infringement action manifestly bound to fail for Germany under Rules 361 and 362 RoP. The court held that Sec. 25(1) GPA is a German national procedural provision inapplicable to UPC proceedings, and that even if it were applicable, the alleged defect would be remediable rather than irremediable.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sought penalty payments against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for allegedly failing to comply with a saisie (evidence preservation) order at Palo Alto's Munich office in connection with European Patent EP 3 281 580. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the request, holding that Palo Alto had no obligation to increase access rights for sales personnel or to set up technical systems not physically present at the premises, as the inspection order was limited to items found at the specified location.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Others
This order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 24 July 2025, concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. The court confirmed its earlier order of 20 June 2025, holding that a FRAND counterclaim is not merely a defence to the infringement action but expands the subject-matter and value in dispute of the proceedings. The court rejected the Defendants' arguments that the FRAND counterclaim should be treated like a counterclaim for revocation for fee purposes or that it should be exempt from court fees.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This enforcement proceeding arose from a decision of 2 April 2025 in UPC_CFI_365/2023 concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, in which FUJIFILM sought to enforce operative parts requiring the Kodak defendants to provide information, destroy infringing embodiments, recall products, and remove them from channels of commerce. The Mannheim Local Division found that the defendants had failed to comply with these obligations despite proper notification and service, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding lack of warning and insufficient translations. The court imposed a three-pronged penalty regime including a lump-sum payment of €100,000, daily penalties of €2,500 until 4 August 2025, and escalated penalties of €10,000 per day thereafter.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V.
An order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 716 655, addressing a precautionary request by the claimant to harmonize time periods in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, holding that the counterclaim for revocation was only effectively served on the claimant on 10 July 2025, and therefore the time period for filing a defence to the counterclaim for revocation did not commence before that date.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities before the Unified Patent Court Local Division Mannheim for infringement of EP 3 511 174 B1, a European patent relating to lithographic printing plate precursors. The proceedings concerning the UK part of the patent were separated following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court held that while it has jurisdiction to decide infringement of the UK part of a European bundle patent, it cannot revoke the UK part with erga omnes effect, and the defendants may raise invalidity as a defense with inter partes effect only.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, in Germany and the United Kingdom. The Mannheim Local Division separated the proceedings regarding the UK part of the patent following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court assessed the validity of the UK part as a mere prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect, found the patent invalid, and dismissed the infringement action with costs borne by FUJIFILM.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and Blankenhorn GmbH
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court denied a request by Respondent PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. to postpone the oral hearing scheduled for September 1, 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. The court held that the urgency inherent in interim measure proceedings requires very special circumstances for postponement, and that vacation absences of legal and patent attorney representatives do not constitute such circumstances. The court also offered the parties the opportunity to raise objections to Respondent 1 participating in the hearing via video link by July 24, 2025.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of 2 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 511 174. The defendants (Kodak entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for information they were required to disclose during enforcement. The court rejected the request, holding that the defendants should have raised confidentiality in the main proceedings, that the main decision already restricted use of the information to the stated purposes, and that no specific risk of misuse was demonstrated.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH & Samsung Electronics France S.A.S. (EP 2 839 403)
The defendants (Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.) requested a three-week extension of time periods for filing their rejoinder in the infringement proceedings and their reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, seeking a deadline of 11 August 2025. The claimant (Fingon LLC) opposed the request. The Mannheim Local Division granted the extension, finding that the defendants had substantiated their need for additional time to analyze new technical arguments and obtain information from a third-party developer and their private expert.
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.