Partially Granted
at Mannheim (DE) Local Division
38 partially granted decisions from Mannheim (DE) Local Division.
Partially Granted Decisions
38 cases | Page 1 of 2
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim found IPG Laser GmbH liable for infringing TRUMPF Laser UK Limited's patent covering advanced fiber laser technology with adjustable beam profiles (YLS-AMB series). The court granted an injunction and established liability for damages dating back to December 2021. While the infringement claim was successful, the respondent's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed.
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
In this complex UPC case involving Corning Incorporated against multiple defendants, the Court of First Instance permitted a partial withdrawal of the infringement action. The claimant agreed to close the proceedings against two specific defendants (Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and Hisense Europe Holding GmbH), while the main suit continued against the remaining TCL entities. Concurrently, the counterclaim for revocation filed by these same parties was also withdrawn, leading to a proportional reimbursement of court fees.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a second application for penalties during ongoing enforcement proceedings concerning EP 3 511 174. The Claimant, Fujifilm, successfully argued that Kodak and its subsidiaries had failed to fully comply with previous court orders regarding destruction and recall of infringing products. The Court found the defendants' disclosures were incomplete and lacked necessary detail, justifying the continuation of penalty measures. While the request for penalty reduction was rejected, leave to appeal was granted, highlighting the evolving nature of enforcement jurisprudence under the UPC.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
Polidoro S.p.a. successfully sued Bekaert Combustion Technology for infringing its patent covering a specific type of premixed burner used in condensation boilers. The UPC Local Division Mannheim found infringement, leading to the granting of cease and desist orders against the Defendants across several UPCA member states. Although the initial claims were successful, the court also dismissed the counterclaim filed by the Defendants seeking revocation of the patent. This case highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where infringement can be established while a revocation defense is simultaneously rejected.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
This Local Division Mannheim decision addressed procedural requests regarding the access and transcription of an oral hearing in a dispute between InterDigital and Amazon. The Court partially granted the defendants' request, allowing them to listen to the confidential audio recording at another UPC location. However, the core request for a complete, independently produced transcript was rejected. The ruling emphasizes the strict interpretation of procedural rules (R. 115 RoP) regarding hearing records, balancing the need for party access against maintaining confidentiality and preventing misuse outside the UPC framework.
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, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed requests for partial withdrawal of an infringement action (UPC_CFI_819/2024) concerning EP 3 296 274. The Claimant successfully sought to withdraw the action against Defendants 7 through 9, and these defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This decision allowed the main infringement proceedings to continue against the remaining parties (Defendants 1-6), while formally closing the dispute with Defendants 7-9.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully pursued an infringement action against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK regarding the juice extractor patent EP 2 028 981. The Local Division Mannheim granted injunctive relief for specific national parts of the patent, finding that the Defendants' slow juicers infringed the claims. This decision is significant as it reinforces the enforcement capabilities of the UPC in complex mechanical product infringement cases.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a motion for disclosure of license agreements in an ongoing infringement and FRAND dispute between Huawei and MediaTek. The court partially granted the respondent's request, compelling the claimant (Huawei) to submit specific relevant licensing contracts. However, the court rejected broader demands for disclosing all related contractual amendments and supplementary agreements. This ruling underscores the Court's careful balancing act between ensuring full transparency in SEP disputes and protecting confidential business information.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handels GmbH (and Johann Windhager, Stefan Windhager)
This UPC decision addresses a complex infringement case involving interlocking metal strips used for garden edging. The court issued significant legal guidance, establishing that merely offering or supplying components designed to assemble easily constitutes direct patent infringement. While the claimant secured an injunction and damages against the main defendant, the overall infringement claim was partially dismissed, highlighting the nuanced application of component supply rules in UPC litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this preliminary injunction case, Huawei sought protection for technical information disclosed by MediaTek in its counterclaim regarding chip functionality and encoding algorithms. The court granted confidentiality status to these specific technical documents, recognizing their sensitive nature despite the claimant's arguments that they were merely 'negative facts.' However, the request to protect a witness's name was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of risk. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to balance proprietary interests against procedural needs in complex technology disputes.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC costs case, the court addressed a request by MediaTek Germany GmbH for Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. to provide security due to its non-EU domicile. While acknowledging enforcement difficulties against Chinese entities, the Local Chamber of Mannheim ultimately ruled that security was necessary. Crucially, the court reduced the demanded amount from €239,000 to €100,000, basing this decision on established cost limits and the complex structure of the litigation involving multiple defendants.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the costs allocation in a provisional measures proceeding concerning EP 4 001 835. The core dispute involved whether the application was moot and who should bear the legal costs, particularly regarding Respondent No. 2 (Blankenhorn GmbH). Although the claimant sought to impose costs on Respondent No. 2 due to lack of formal warning, the court found that since both parties agreed the matter was settled, the proceedings were terminated. The court ultimately upheld the imposition of costs on Respondent No. 2 based on principles of equity.
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 procedural order addressed a request by multiple defendants (ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH) to extend the time limit for filing their statement of defence. The extension was sought because they required access to an unredacted exhibit related to the claimant's entitlement to assert the patent-in-suit. The court partially granted the request, finding that a short extension was justified to compensate for the delay in accessing minor evidence, while rejecting demands for a full extension.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request for an extension of time related to a penalty payment enforcement action concerning EP 2 028 981. The court balanced the parties' interests against the need for efficient proceedings, ultimately granting only a two-week extension. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural extensions are limited and do not negate the defendant's original obligation to provide information in due time.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a significant enforcement ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance imposed severe penalties on Kodak entities for non-compliance with a previous final decision regarding EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm successfully argued that despite clear deadlines and notices, the Defendants failed to execute obligations related to information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from commerce. The court established a multi-tiered penalty structure, starting with an immediate lump sum payment of €100,000, escalating to daily fines, underscoring the UPC's robust enforcement mechanisms.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This Mannheim Local Division decision clarifies complex jurisdictional issues surrounding European bundle patents validated in the UK. The court affirmed the UPC's jurisdiction over the infringement of the UK national part, allowing defendants to raise invalidity defenses within the UPC proceedings without needing a separate national revocation action. While finding infringement and ordering product recall/destruction, the ruling emphasizes that declaratory relief obtained before the UPC is not binding on UK national authorities.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.
In this procedural matter, Irdeto B.V. sued several DJI entities for patent infringement concerning EP 2 831 787. The defendants requested an extension and harmonization of the time periods for filing their Statement of Defence due to technical complexity. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim partially granted the request, establishing a uniform deadline but rejecting the plea for further delay. This decision underscores the court's focus on procedural efficiency while maintaining strict requirements for demonstrating genuine need for extensions.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
This Mannheim Local Court decision addressed a complex UPC case involving DISH Technologies and Sling TV against several defendants regarding EP 2 479 680, which covers rate-adaptive streaming methods. The ruling provided crucial guidance on patent law principles, specifically defining the limits of 'technical-functional equivalence' in infringement analysis. It also clarified that isolated challenges to dependent claims are generally insufficient for legal protection without challenging the independent claim.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division Mannheim addressed the claimant's request for additional written submissions regarding AVS Class 0. The Court found that while repeated requests are usually inadmissible, it exceptionally allowed limited supplementation on this specific technical point to ensure all arguments were considered before the oral hearing. This decision highlights the court's balance between procedural efficiency and ensuring a fair presentation of complex technical issues.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request concerning the composition of the confidentiality club in an ongoing infringement action involving Fujifilm and Kodak. The court ruled that while the claimant could not fully expand its access authorizations, it was granted permission to replace certain members with others whose involvement did not pose an undue risk to the defendants' confidential information. This highlights the court's careful balancing act when managing procedural aspects of sensitive IP litigation.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm successfully sued Kodak entities for infringing EP 3 511 174 B1, a patent covering lithographic printing plate technology. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim found infringement, leading to significant remedies including the mandatory destruction and recall of the contested products (SONORA XTRA-3). Although the defendants' counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, the case highlights the court's willingness to grant strong injunctive relief against infringing parties.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Fujifilm successfully sued Kodak entities for infringing a patent related to lithographic printing plates in the UPC Local Division Mannheim. The court found infringement, leading to significant remedies including mandatory destruction and recall of the contested products. While Fujifilm's counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, the defendants were ordered to pay an interim award for legal costs, marking a decisive victory for the claimant.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This decision addressed an application for access to court files (Rule 262) within a complex UPC infringement case. The Court acknowledged the general public interest in observing proceedings but prioritized protecting sensitive information and mitigating technical risks associated with the CMS workflow system. Consequently, it granted limited access to redacted versions of documents, setting a precedent for balancing transparency against confidentiality in high-stakes UPC litigation.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully sued NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK for infringing EP 2 028 981, a patent covering juice extractors. The court found infringement regarding the contested embodiment (slow juicers). Crucially, the decision also provided significant legal guidance on intertemporal law in UPC proceedings, clarifying when UPCA rules apply versus national laws for past and ongoing infringing acts. This case is important for practitioners navigating the transition period of the Unified Patent Court.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for infringing European Patent EP 2 028 981, which covers a juice extractor. The court found infringement and issued significant remedies, including orders to destroy and recall the infringing products in various EU member states. Beyond the core finding of infringement, the decision provided important guidance on how intertemporal law applies within the UPC framework, particularly concerning acts that span before and after the UPCA's entry into force.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation successfully secured a finding of infringement against OPPO entities regarding its patent covering radio communication devices essential for the 4G standard. While the court granted an injunction, it made enforcement conditional on Panasonic providing a €10 million security deposit to the defendants. Crucially, both the revocation and FRAND counterclaims brought by OPPO were dismissed, strengthening Panasonic's position in this complex SEP dispute.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation successfully secured a finding of infringement against OPPO entities regarding its patent covering radio communication devices essential for the 4G standard. The court granted an injunction but made it conditional on Panasonic providing a €10 million security deposit, a common feature in complex SEP disputes within the UPC. Crucially, both the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and their FRAND counterclaims were dismissed by the Mannheim Local Court.
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v.pharma-aktiva GmbH
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG successfully obtained provisional measures against multiple defendants, including pharma-aktiva GmbH and various Aldi/Hofer group entities, regarding the alleged infringement of EP 1 993 363 B1. The patent covers a specific composition used to combat ectoparasites. The court issued an immediate injunction prohibiting the manufacture and sale of the infringing product in Germany and Austria, alongside imposing significant penalty payments (Zwangsgeld). This decision highlights the broad reach of UPC provisional measures against large retail groups.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued OPPO group companies for infringing its patent EP 2 568 724, which relates to radio communication devices essential for the 4G standard. The case also involved counterclaims regarding FRAND licensing and patent revocation. While the court found infringement and awarded preliminary damages of €250,000, it ultimately dismissed the main infringement lawsuit. This decision highlights the complex interplay between finding technical infringement and the ultimate scope of relief granted in UPC proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This decision from the Lokalkammer Mannheim addresses a request for protective measures concerning confidential information, specifically patent licensing agreements between Panasonic and Xiaomi entities. The court partially granted the protection regime, establishing strict rules on who can access these sensitive documents. This ruling highlights the UPC's detailed procedural mechanisms for managing trade secrets during 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.