Litigation
at Mannheim (DE) Local Division
161 litigation decisions from Mannheim (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
161 cases | Page 3 of 6
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited, as registered proprietor of EP 3 281 580, applied to the Local Division Mannheim for an order to preserve evidence (Saisie) under Art. 60 UPCA, alleging that Palo Alto Networks' network security solution (Next Generation Firewall, Advanced Threat Prevention, and App-ID Cloud Engine) likely infringed claims 1 and 16 of the patent. After the judge-rapporteur initially rejected the application and the Court of Appeal referred the matter back, the court granted the application in modified form, ordering inspection, evidence preservation, and an expert report subject to a security of EUR 100,000 and various confidentiality conditions.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Interdigital CE Patent Holdings SAS v.The Walt Disney Company and Others
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order addressing the respondents' refusal to acknowledge service of an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) previously granted on May 27, 2025. The court found that the respondents' legal representatives could not limit their power of attorney to evade service while simultaneously making substantive representations in the proceedings. The court ordered service by court bailiff, directed the representatives to acknowledge receipt and register in the CMS within two weeks, and threatened a coercive fine of €100,000 for non-compliance.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and other Disney entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. before the Local Division Mannheim, applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, the language in which the patent EP3259902 was granted, without imposing specific translation or interpretation arrangements.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 746 957. The order contains preliminary remarks and questions from the judge-rapporteur in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 22 July 2025, addressing claim construction, validity issues, and infringement considerations. The order also confirms the value in dispute at EUR 5,000,000 for both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH & Others
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a request by the claimant, Corning Incorporated, for a two-week extension of the time limit to file its Reply to the Statement of Defence and the Defence to the Counterclaim, including an Application to amend the patent EP 3 296 274. The court granted the extension, finding that the claimant had been without full access to the defendants' submissions for three weeks due to the establishment of a confidentiality regime.
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (EP 3 652 914)
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a request by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Defendant) to extend the time period for filing its rejoinder in infringement proceedings, reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, and defence against the application to amend European patent EP 3 652 914. The court granted a two-week extension until 14 July 2025, citing the outbreak of hostilities affecting the Defendant's key technical employee based in Israel, but shortened the extension to 9 July 2025 in the event the Defendant files an application for access restrictions under R. 262A RoP.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH
This order concerns a request by Defendants DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH to extend and harmonize the time periods for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action brought by Irdeto B.V. concerning EP 2 831 787. The Mannheim Local Division granted a partial extension, extending the deadlines for Defendants 3 and 4 until 14 August 2025 to achieve harmonization, but dismissed the request for a longer extension to 15 September 2025, finding the defendants had not sufficiently demonstrated the need for additional time.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim involving EP 3 905 730. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1 and FRAND Counter-Claimant) had stated the value in dispute of its FRAND counterclaim at 4 Mio €, but the court found this largely underestimated since a FRAND license does not relate solely to the patent-in-suit. The court set the value of the overall proceedings on a preliminary basis and ordered Samsung to pay an additional advance on fees, while allowing the parties to comment on the value in dispute until 21 July 2025.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 108 413 in a patent infringement action. The Claimant sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its damages claim to include profits from sales of CeraPUR sealing materials and service/maintenance contracts related to the allegedly infringing CeraFLOW machines. The court held that the original request IV. already encompassed all damages from the alleged infringing acts and permitted the clarifying amendment without needing a R. 263 RoP application, while postponing the remaining aspects of the amendment request until after the oral hearing.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc. (Counterclaim for Revocation – Application to Amend)
CeraCon GmbH, the defendant in infringement proceedings and claimant in a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 4 108 413, sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its counterclaim by introducing a new novelty attack based on prior art document EP 3 868 480 A1 (WO 2021/131055). The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, holding that R. 263 RoP applies in full to counterclaims for revocation and that granting leave where a simple prior art search could have revealed the document would effectively allow any later-discovered document to be introduced.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 2 479 680, relating to a method for presenting a rate-adaptive data stream. DISH Technologies and Sling TV (part of a telecommunications/satellite TV group) sued several entities of the Aylo adult entertainment group for alleged literal and equivalent indirect infringement based on the 'Auto' playback quality function in their streaming services. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The patent expired by lapse of time during the proceedings, and the court addressed issues of equivalence, the removal of dependent claims, and the appropriate number of auxiliary requests.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 839 403 before the Mannheim Local Division. The Defendants objected to the Claimant's reply, arguing it introduced new Trusted Applications and Samsung Galaxy S25 models without seeking leave to amend the case under R. 263 RoP. The Court held that the reply did not constitute an amendment of the case as it merely provided further illustrative examples of the attacked embodiment, and dismissed the Defendants' requests while postponing the decision on exclusion of impugned submissions until after the oral hearing.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation requested the Mannheim Local Division to issue a warning to the Kodak defendants that non-compliance with the information orders in the judgment of 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023) concerning EP 3 511 174 would result in penalties of up to EUR 30,000 per day. The court rejected the application, holding that the panel had explicitly decided in the main decision not to set a fixed time period for information provision or a penalty amount up-front, and that such matters would be addressed in a subsequent application to impose penalties.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Defendants' request under R. 262A RoP seeking to classify information they were ordered to provide to the Claimant as confidential. The court held that R. 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings, not to information ordered to be disclosed pursuant to a decision on the merits, and that the existing restrictions on the use of the information sufficiently protected the Defendants' interests.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns a request by the Defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection regarding information they were ordered to provide to the Claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.) under a prior decision of 11 March 2025. The court dismissed the request in its entirety, holding that Rule 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings of the parties, not to information ordered to be disclosed to the opposing party, and that the existing use restrictions inherent in the information order sufficiently protected the Defendants' interests.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 4 108 413. The court clarified that the claimant validly chose English as the language of the proceedings by filing its statement of claim in English and designating English pursuant to Art. 49(2) UPCA, since English is the language of the patent-in-suit and the claimant alleged infringement in multiple member states.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics Sarl
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 4 074 373 B1. The parties reached a settlement and jointly declared they had reached a comparison. The plaintiff requested permission to withdraw the action, which the defendants consented to, and the court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and set the value in dispute at EUR 6,000,000.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 4 050 804. The court determined that the value in dispute had been largely underestimated given the commercial scope of the action, which targeted all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of the defendants and involved a FRAND rate discussion. The value of the infringement action was set to €4,000,000 on a preliminary basis, requiring the claimant to pay an additional advance on fees of €26,000.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a patent infringement action relating to EP 2 746 957. The Claimant sought review under R. 333 RoP of a judge-rapporteur's order dismissing its request to file a further written pleading under R. 12.5 and R. 36 RoP. The panel dismissed the application for review, confirming the judge-rapporteur's order on the grounds that the Claimant's request lacked sufficient substantiation and that the vague points raised did not justify allowing additional written submissions.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 716 655. The defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V., belong to the same group of companies and requested harmonization of time periods for submitting their Statements of Defence and lodging any Counterclaim for Revocation, to which the claimant consented. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 2 July 2025 for both defendants.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Total Semiconductor, LLC filed a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 746 957 against three Texas Instruments entities before the Local Division Mannheim. The claimant applied under Rule 263 RoP for leave to amend its case to add the AM67x product as an attacked embodiment, arguing it discovered the new product only after the defendants' rejoinder. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and would hinder their defence. The court postponed the final decision on the amendment application until the oral hearing and granted the defendants until 11 June 2025 to respond in substance.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant (Centripetal Limited) applied for leave to amend its case under R. 263 RoP to include references to the alleged software solution 'Threat Simulator' and the alleged gateway component 'ThreatARMOR' in its Reply. The Court postponed the final decision on whether to grant leave to amend until the oral hearing at the latest, allowing Defendants to respond to the new submissions in their Rejoinder by the extended deadline of 13 June 2025.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 746 957 before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant requested permission to file a further written submission under Rules 12.5 and 36 RoP in response to the Defendants' rejoinder, particularly regarding new arguments on Adaptive Voltage Scaling (AVS) Class 0. The court partially postponed the final decision on admission of further written submissions until the oral hearing, granting the Claimant two weeks to submit a response strictly limited to AVS Class 0, with Defendants given two weeks to reply, while dismissing the request in all other respects.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Kodak entities) for rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a decision dated 2 April 2025 in patent infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 476 616. The Defendants sought to rectify the value in dispute from EUR 15,000,000 to EUR 15,000,000 each for the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (totaling EUR 30,000,000), and alternatively to raise the ceiling for recoverable costs. The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, finding no deviation between the panel's intention and the wording of the decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd filed an infringement action against three ZTE group entities (ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, and ZTE Netherlands B.V.) concerning European patent EP 4 050 804 before the Mannheim Local Division. The defendants, all part of the same group and uniformly represented, requested harmonization of the time periods for filing Statements of Defence and Counterclaims for revocation, which had become staggered due to different service dates. With the claimant's consent, the court ordered a uniform deadline of 3 July 2025 for all three defendants.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 037 175. The Claimant, Polidoro S.p.a., requested an extension of the deadline for filing its reply brief by one week until 19 May 2025, due to delayed access to the unredacted version of the Statement of Defence and the late service of the Counterclaim for Revocation. The court granted the extension, finding it justified under the circumstances, and noted that the Defendants did not oppose the request.
The Walt Disney Company Limited and Others v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. (Application No. APP_17389/2025, UPC_CFI_86/2025)
The Walt Disney group entities and BAMTech (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings before the Local Division Mannheim from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2465265 was granted. InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. (the Claimant) opposed the request. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. et al.
Procedural order issued by the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 in an infringement action. All parties agreed that service on all defendants should be deemed uniformly effected on 30 April 2025 to avoid service abroad and associated translations. The court granted the defendants' request, establishing uniform deadlines for preliminary objections and statements of defence across all defendants.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This order concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's request to replace three of nine members of the confidentiality club established under Rule 262A RoP in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 476 616. The defendants (Kodak entities) opposed the request, arguing that the circle of persons with access to confidential information should not be expanded. The Mannheim Local Division allowed the request in part, permitting two replacements whose substitutes already had access to confidential information from parallel proceedings, but rejecting the third replacement.
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.