Pending
at Mannheim (DE) Local Division
43 pending decisions from Mannheim (DE) Local Division.
Pending Decisions
43 cases | Page 1 of 2
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a dispute over court fees related to counterclaims for revocation. The claimant, Irdeto B.V., initiated an infringement action against several defendants, including SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. The core issue was whether Defendant 1 could use the fee paid by Defendants 2-4 when submitting its own counterclaim later. The Court ruled that because Defendant 1's submission constituted a separate action/counterclaim in time, it must pay a distinct court fee.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V., Solvest Participatie V B.V., Solvest Participatie VI B.V., Solvest Participatie VII B.V., Solvink B.V., De Kleine Beuk B.V., Hemtech d.o.o.
This procedural order addressed the defendants' application for a panel review against the rejection of their preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and competence. The Court upheld the initial finding that Honeywell had sufficiently asserted infringement within Germany to maintain the case before the Mannheim Local Division. While the defendants argued for narrow interpretation of UPC jurisdiction, the court clarified that the merits of the infringement claim would be decided later, allowing the case to proceed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.HMD Global Oy
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim established a comprehensive confidentiality regime for ongoing FRAND negotiations between Huawei and HMD Global. The court recognized that details of confidential license discussions require protection under Rule 262A RoP, extending this shield to future submissions. This order is significant as it provides clear legal certainty regarding the handling of sensitive commercial data within UPC proceedings, balancing the need for transparency with the necessity of protecting proprietary information.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
This UPC CFI order addressed procedural disputes between ZTE and Samsung concerning an infringement action related to EP 3 905 730. The court closed the written procedure but deferred a decision on whether ZTE's late submissions were relevant, requiring analysis after the oral hearing. Crucially, while rejecting Samsung’s request for further written pleadings, the court granted provisional access to confidential license agreement information under strict confidentiality terms (R. 262A RoP), balancing procedural fairness with trade secret protection.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al.
Nokia sued the Geely group (including brands like Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart) for infringing a patent related to efficient resource allocation in mobile communication systems. The court addressed the complex issue of jurisdiction over multiple corporate entities within a large group structure. By upholding the unified action under Article 33(1)(b), the Mannheim Local Court ensured procedural efficiency, allowing Nokia's claim against all subsidiaries to proceed simultaneously.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 481 141, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by Anker Innovations and associated entities to stay infringement proceedings. The defendants sought a stay pending a decision on their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich LD. The Court determined that this request must be decided after the oral hearing because the applicability of the FRAND defense depends entirely on the outcome of the main infringement and validity arguments.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the valuation of cases involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and FRAND counterclaims. The Court ruled that a FRAND counterclaim significantly expands the scope and value in dispute beyond the initial infringement action, distinguishing it from a simple defense or a revocation counterclaim. This ruling clarifies that SEPs litigation can involve complex valuations based on licensing terms, even if those fees exceed standard infringement claim values.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for a complex UPC case involving TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR against Texas Instruments regarding EP 2 746 957. The court has meticulously outlined numerous technical questions, focusing heavily on claim construction related to processor architecture, interrupt handling, and power management features like 'directly coupled' and 'clock gating.' Both infringement and a counterclaim for revocation will be heard at the upcoming oral hearing.
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
In this preliminary order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed the valuation of a complex case involving an infringement action against Samsung by ZTE, which included a FRAND counterclaim. The court ruled that basing the value solely on the patent-in-suit is insufficient for assessing the scope of a FRAND license. This decision significantly impacts the financial burden and procedural trajectory of the dispute, setting a preliminary, higher valuation for the overall proceedings.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the claimant sought to amend its damages claim to include profits derived from ancillary sales of sealing material and service contracts related to the allegedly infringing machines. The court addressed the admissibility of this clarification under R. 263 RoP, balancing the need for a front-loaded procedure against the defendant's right to defense. Ultimately, the court permitted the claimant to clarify its request without formal amendment while deferring the final decision on the scope of damages until after the oral hearing.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case concerning EP 2 839 403 addressed a dispute over whether the Claimant's introduction of new technical details and product examples constituted an impermissible amendment to the infringement action. The Court determined that providing further illustrative examples of existing functionalities, even on newly released models, does not change the nature or scope of the original dispute. Consequently, while the request to exclude these submissions was postponed for a full panel review, all other procedural requests by the Defendants were dismissed.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This procedural order in the Mannheim Local Division addressed a dispute over the language of proceedings in an infringement action concerning EP 4 108 413. The Claimant, Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH, sought to confirm its choice of English as the official language. The Court ruled that the Claimant's initial designation and filing in English was valid, thereby resolving the procedural issue regarding the language.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
Samsung initiated an infringement action against ZTE regarding standard-essential patents related to 5G mobile devices. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim issued an order setting the preliminary value of the dispute at €4 million. This decision significantly raises the financial stakes for both parties, reflecting the broad commercial impact of the alleged infringement across key market segments.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim harmonized the deadlines for two related defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. The court agreed with the parties' request to set a uniform deadline of July 2, 2025, for submitting Statements of Defence. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the Court's willingness to manage procedural complexities in multi-defendant cases involving corporate groups, prioritizing efficiency over strict adherence to initial service dates.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order addresses a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to amend its infringement action to include the AM67x product as an attacked embodiment. The court recognized the complexity of balancing the claimant's need to address new market activity against the defendants' right to prepare their defense. Instead of making a final ruling immediately, the judge postponed the decision until the oral hearing while granting the defendants time to respond in substance to the proposed amendment.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order concerning a patent infringement action, the Claimant sought leave to amend its case to include new submissions regarding 'Threat Simulator' and 'ThreatARMOR.' The Defendants opposed this request. The Local Division Mannheim postponed the final decision on whether to grant this leave until the oral hearing. This ruling highlights the Court's cautious approach when assessing amendments that introduce potentially distinct attacked embodiments, requiring a full understanding of the patent scope before making a determination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed the varying service dates of three related ZTE entities. The court ruled that to ensure procedural fairness and efficiency, all parties agreed to harmonize the deadlines for submitting defenses and revocation counterclaims. This decision establishes a uniform timeline across the group defendants, streamlining the ongoing litigation.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 037 175, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim granted Polidoro S.p.a. an extension of one week to file its reply brief and defense against Bekaert's counterclaim for revocation. The court acknowledged that delays in providing unredacted documents necessitated this procedural adjustment. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to ensuring fair procedure, even when dealing with complex litigation involving both infringement claims and revocation counterclaims.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd.; Anker Technology (UK) Ltd.; Anker Innovations (Netherlands) B.V.; Anker Innovations Ltd.; Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH; Fantasia Trading LLC
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Mannheim Local Division addressed issues related to service dates and deadlines. The parties successfully negotiated a uniform date of service for all defendants, which allowed the Court to set consistent timelines for preliminary objections and statements of defense across all involved entities. This decision highlights the flexibility of the UPC in managing complex multi-jurisdictional litigation through party consent.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC
This UPC procedural order in Mannheim addresses an infringement action brought by DISH Technologies and Sling TV against several defendants, including Brockwell Group. The court has not yet ruled on the merits but has meticulously outlined the complex technical and legal issues for the upcoming oral hearing. Key points include interpreting the scope of 'server' and 'bitrate' within the patent claims, clarifying whether infringement is cumulative across various streaming services, and addressing the procedural implications of the patent's impending expiration.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 476 616, the UPC Local Division Mannheim separated the infringement proceedings related to the UK national part. This decision was driven by the pending ECJ ruling (C-339/22) on international jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation. The court aimed to balance the need for timely enforcement of patent rights against the necessity of properly addressing a fundamental question of European law, ensuring both parties have an opportunity to comment on the ECJ's decision.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim separated the infringement proceedings related to the UK national part of EP 3 511 174. This decision was necessitated by an outstanding ECJ ruling concerning international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation. The court aimed to prevent undue delay in enforcement while ensuring all parties had a fair opportunity to comment on the pending European law question.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Cloudflare Inc.
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a procedural motion regarding information disclosure (Rule 191(2) EPC). The claimants sought to have the court determine if certain requested information was non-essential before proceeding with the disclosure request. The UPC ruled that while this preliminary determination is inadmissible, the disclosure request itself can be made conditionally, pending the outcome of the main infringement case. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility in balancing discovery needs against third-party rights.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a complex jurisdictional issue arising from pending ECJ case law regarding international jurisdiction under Brussels Ia. Given that a fundamental question of European Law was unresolved, the court opted to separate the proceedings concerning specific national parts (Poland, Spain, UK) from the main bundle patent action. This decision aims to prevent unnecessary delays in enforcing potential rights related to those ready-to-decide national parts.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a complex jurisdictional issue arising from pending ECJ case law regarding international jurisdiction. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the application of Brussels Ia Regulation rules, the Panel opted not to delay decisions on national parts of the patent that were ready for adjudication. Consequently, the proceedings concerning specific non-UPC member states (Poland, Spain, Turkey, and UK) were separated into a distinct proceeding.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order in the Fujifilm v. Kodak infringement case sets the stage for a complex oral hearing at the UPC Mannheim Local Division. The court identified significant legal hurdles, particularly concerning retroactivity and the choice of law (UPCA vs. national law) for infringing acts that occurred before the UPCA's entry into force. Furthermore, the claimant must clarify precisely which countries are subject to the sought remedies. These points underscore the high level of complexity involved in cross-border patent litigation under the new UPC framework.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order in the Fujifilm v. Kodak case sets the stage for a complex oral hearing concerning patent infringement of EP 3 511 174. The court focused heavily on jurisdictional and legal questions, particularly how to treat alleged infringing acts that occurred before the UPC Agreement entered into force. Furthermore, detailed technical clarification is required from both parties regarding specific product embodiments (SONORA XTRA-3) and the scope of remedies sought across various territories.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for complex oral hearings in UPC case UPC_CFI_210/2023. The proceedings are highly structured, dedicating one day to technical infringement and validity issues, and a second day to the critical FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) aspects of the dispute. Given the involvement of OPPO and Panasonic, this case is significant for understanding how the UPC manages intertwined technical disputes with complex antitrust/FRAND claims.
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, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for a complex UPC case involving Panasonic and various Xiaomi entities regarding EP 2 568 724. The court has meticulously structured the oral proceedings, dedicating the first day to technical issues like patent validity and infringement, and the second day to the critical FRAND licensing framework. This detailed planning highlights the complexity of modern SEP litigation within the UPC.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addresses how defendants can submit large video recordings as evidence in an ongoing infringement action. The court clarified that although USB sticks are permitted for exceeding CMS size limits, a specific two-step procedure involving a new R. 9 application and a 'physical exhibit description' document must be followed to ensure proper registration with the Court's system. This ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural rules when introducing physical evidence in UPC proceedings.
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.