Litigation
at Mannheim (DE) Local Division
161 litigation decisions from Mannheim (DE) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
161 cases | Page 4 of 6
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Aylo Premium Ltd and Others
This is a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680, which relates to video streaming technology. The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., allege infringement against multiple defendants including Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Billing Limited, Aylo Freesites Ltd, Aylo Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC. The order at hand is a preparatory ruling by the judge-rapporteur structuring the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for May 7-8, 2025, identifying key issues for discussion including claim construction, the formulation of the plaintiffs' requests, and questions regarding the defendants' counterclaim for revocation.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd and Others
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680 in an infringement action. The defendants sought permission under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure to file additional written submissions regarding allegedly contradictory statements made by the first plaintiff (DISH Technologies) in a parallel US proceeding before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board concerning a related patent (US 8,868,772). The court rejected the application, holding that a party's differing interpretation of another patent in a separate proceeding is not admissible interpretation material for the patent in suit, and that the defendants failed to justify why they could not have introduced the relevant technical facts earlier in the proceedings.
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.
This procedural order concerns patent EP 3 296 274 before the Local Division Mannheim. The defendants, belonging to three competing groups (TCL, Hisense, and LG Electronics) and all represented by the same counsel, applied for separation of proceedings to avoid sharing sensitive supply chain information among competitors. The court rejected the applications, holding that any potential conflicts arose solely from the defendants' choice to be represented by identical counsel and that it was the representative's obligation to manage such conflicts internally.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Samsung in a patent infringement action brought by Fingon LLC regarding EP 2 839 403. The defendants challenged the validity of the claimant's withdrawal of an opt-out and the UPC's temporal jurisdiction over acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force and during the opt-out period. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection, holding that questions of fact and law relevant to both jurisdiction and the merits should be reserved for the main proceedings.
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.
Corning Incorporated filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim concerning EP 3 296 274 against defendants from three separate corporate groups (Hisense, TCL, and LG). The defendants filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal, arguing they were mere distributors of LCD-TVs with no direct connection to the glass manufacturer and that joining three independent competitor groups in one action constituted an artificial splitting of cases violating fair trial principles. The court rejected the preliminary objections, holding that the Local Division Mannheim had competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA for each defendant individually, that no obligation existed to sue OEMs and suppliers jointly, and that the defendants' fair trial arguments were unpersuasive.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors with specific anodized aluminum support features. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, added matter, and asserting a public prior use right. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement of the patent as amended, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, disclosure orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174. The court ordered the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent-in-suit because the ECJ decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte), which addressed a fundamental question of European law on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, was only delivered after the oral hearing. The court found it inappropriate to delay the entire decision or hold a second oral hearing, and instead separated the UK-related claims to be dealt with in separate proceedings.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 476 616, addressing the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent. The panel separated the UK-related claims and counterclaims into separate proceedings because a fundamental question of European law concerning international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation was pending before the European Court of Justice (Case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte), and the parties had not had the opportunity to comment on the ECJ's subsequent decision.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, and alleging added matter. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement by the defendants' SONORA XTRA-3 product, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.
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.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning patent EP 3 296 274, in which defendants from the Hisense, TCL, and LG groups sought a stay of proceedings under R. 295(m) RoP pending a related action against the alleged glass manufacturer. The court rejected the stay applications, finding no obligation to sue OEMs and their suppliers jointly, and ordered the parties to use a single workflow for future submissions.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, by selling SONORA X, SONORA XTRA-2, and SONORA XTRA-3 products in Germany and the UK. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The Local Division Mannheim revoked the patent entirely in Germany, dismissed Fujifilm's application to amend the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Fujifilm to pay EUR 300,000 in interim costs.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Total Semiconductor, LLC (Claimant) filed a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 746 957 against three Texas Instruments entities before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant requested permission to file a further written submission under Rules 12.5 and 36 RoP, arguing that the Defendants' rejoinder raised new and technically complex points requiring a written response. The Court dismissed the request, holding that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient substantiation and that the allegedly new arguments were in fact responses to the Claimant's own prior submissions.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Cloudflare Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) had filed a subsidiary application under R. 191 Alt. 2 RoP against third party Cloudflare Inc. for transmission of information, and then sought a preliminary finding that the requested information was not decisive. The court held that such a preliminary finding request is inadmissible, but interpreted the plaintiffs' conditional withdrawal as making the R. 191 application itself conditional on the information being decisive, and stayed the decision on the information request and related applications.
AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB (Application under Rule 262 RoP in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH)
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning an application under Rule 262 of the Rules of Procedure for access to court file documents in a patent infringement case (EP 2 568 724) between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO/OROPE. The applicant law firm AMPERSAND sought access to all pleadings and evidence, citing general and scientific information interests. The court granted limited access, ordering the plaintiff to provide redacted versions of specified documents on an encrypted data carrier or data room, while rejecting the broader request.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 028 981. The panel ordered the separation of proceedings with respect to the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning non-UPC countries (Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), to be dealt with in separate proceedings, while allowing the remaining parts of the case to proceed to a decision on the merits without waiting for the pending ECJ decision in Case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte).
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
Hurom Co., Ltd., the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 028 981 relating to a juice extractor, sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for patent infringement regarding slow juicers marketed under the name 'AUTO10' in Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The Local Division Mannheim addressed key intertemporal law questions regarding the applicable substantive law (UPCA vs. national laws) for acts before and after the UPCA's entry into force on 1 June 2023. The court found infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, granted an injunction, ordered information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from channels of commerce, and awarded EUR 56,000 in interim legal costs.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 028 981. The court ordered the separation of proceedings with respect to the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, to be dealt with in separate proceedings, while the main proceedings concerning UPC member states could proceed to a decision on the merits.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCO
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court addressed a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 028 981 B1, which relates to a juice extractor. The Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd., alleged that slow juicers marketed by the Defendants under the name 'AUTO10' infringed the patent. The court established key principles on the intertemporal applicability of substantive law under the UPCA versus national laws, holding that UPCA applies to ongoing infringing acts continued after 1 June 2023, and that information rights under the UPCA extend to pre-entry-into-force periods. The court found partial infringement and ordered remedies including injunctive relief, information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from commerce.
Applicant v.Defendant (UPC_CFI_142/2025)
The applicant, as registered and sole proprietor of a European Patent, sought an order under Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP to preserve evidence (Saisie) against the defendant, alleging highly probable infringement of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a sufficient degree of probability that the asserted claim combination was infringed, and that the requested measures—including requiring the defendant to actively set up a full test environment—went beyond what Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP permit.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The Local Chamber Mannheim found infringement of the patent, dismissed the revocation and FRAND counterclaims, and ordered injunctive relief, recall, information/accounting, and provisional damages of EUR 250,000, subject to a EUR 10 million security.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a revocation counterclaim and a FRAND counterclaim seeking a court-determined license. The Local Chamber Mannheim found the patent infringed and valid, partially granted the infringement action, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and dismissed the FRAND counterclaim, ordering the defendants to bear the costs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3069315. Following a settlement between the parties, the court allowed the withdrawal of the infringement action filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and the jointly filed nullity counterclaim brought by the Xiaomi entities and other defendants. The court declared the proceedings terminated, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed a 40% reimbursement of court fees.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Order of the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the withdrawal of an infringement action and a jointly filed counterclaim for revocation following a settlement between the parties. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, set the value of the dispute at EUR 8,000,000, and ruled on the allocation of court fees and costs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Before the Local Chamber Mannheim, the parties — Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH as defendants — reached a settlement and jointly withdrew the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent No. EP 2 568 724. The withdrawal was filed after the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court heard a patent infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 548 648, owned by Rematec GmbH & Co KG, relating to a mill for comminuting grinding material such as wood chips. The court found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D3 and D9, particularly regarding the feature of ribs arranged at an angle to the circumferential direction. The patent was declared fully invalid, the infringement action was dismissed, and costs were split 3/4 to the claimant and 1/4 to the defendant.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a preparatory order issued by the Mannheim Local Division in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 476 616, brought by FUJIFILM Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order sets out preliminary views and questions ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 11–13 February 2025, addressing issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law for pre- and post-UPCA infringing acts, the value of the dispute, prior use defences, and validity questions concerning prior art documents WO 379 and US 952.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 511 174, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese for its representatives at the oral hearing, which the Kodak defendants opposed. The court allowed FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense but declined to make the interpretation costs part of the proceedings' costs.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, brought by Fujifilm Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order, issued in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 11-13 February 2025, sets out preliminary views and questions on key issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law (UPCA versus national law), the value of the dispute, priority and prior use rights, the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and infringement by the SONORA XTRA-3 product.
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v.pharma-aktiva GmbH, ALDI SÜD Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. oHG, ALDI Nord Deutschland Stiftung & Co. KG, ALDI SE & Co. KG, Hofer Kommanditgesellschaft
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG, the proprietor of European Patent EP 1 993 363 B1 concerning a composition for combating ectoparasites and their eggs, sought interim measures against pharma-aktiva GmbH and several Aldi/Hofer entities for alleged infringement through the sale of a competing lice spray. The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court granted the interim measures in part, ordering the respondents to cease certain manufacturing, offering, and distribution activities in Germany and Austria, with penalties of EUR 100 per unit for violations, and to surrender infringing products in their possession.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The defendants in a patent infringement case concerning EP 2 568 724 filed a last-minute request to stay the proceedings and cancel the scheduled announcement date of November 22, 2024, or alternatively to postpone it to at least December 6, 2024. The Local Chamber Mannheim rejected both the main and alternative requests, finding that no joint application for stay existed under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure and that no circumstances justified a stay under Rule 295(m).
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.