Litigation
9 litigation decisions from Mannheim Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
9 cases | Page 1 of 1
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal lodged by Windhager as inadmissible because the Statement of appeal was not electronically signed within the non-extendable two-month time period under Rule 224.1(a) RoP. The Court held that logging into the CMS with two-factor authentication is insufficient to satisfy the signature requirement under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that the signature requirement does not fall within the formal examination under Rule 229 RoP. Windhager's subsequent application for re-establishment of rights, made during the oral hearing, was also rejected as inadmissible because the six-month time limit under Rule 320.2 RoP had already expired.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
This case concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 465 265 before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., withdrew its request dated 23 July 2026 for the imposition of penalty payments on the defendants (multiple Disney entities) by brief of 6 August 2026. The defendants raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the enforcement proceedings closed, and ordered the claimant to bear the costs.
penalties serve to incentivize that is relevant., 4) There is no legal basis for assessment of whether the def v.Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Düsseldorf, Germany
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim Local Division (decision issued on 2026-08-03) under reference UPC_EE030B5C43, penalties serve to incentivize that is relevant., 4) There is no legal basis for assessment of whether the def appeared in dispute with Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Düsseldorf, Germany concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-15) under reference UPC_BA52E97E61, Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA appeared in dispute with InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Respondent
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-13) under reference UPC_BECF20770B, Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan appeared in dispute with Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG, Poststraße 10, 84378 Dietersburg, Germ v.Patentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte, LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
This case concerns an Application pursuant to R. 333 RoP filed by Rematec seeking review of a judge-rapporteur's order that dismissed Rematec's request to have its Application for a cost decision forwarded to the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeal held that the Application was admissible but unfounded, confirming that cost decision proceedings must be initiated before the Court of First Instance, even when they relate to costs arising from appeal proceedings. The Court ruled that the Rules of Procedure do not provide for a specific procedure for cost decisions following Court of Appeal decisions, so the general procedure under R. 150 et seq. RoP applies.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG (now trading as “IPG Photonics GmbH, Peterreins Schley Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB v.Peter Blok, legally qualified judge, LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted IPG Laser to withdraw its appeals against a Mannheim Local Division decision that had found infringement of EP 2 951 625 and dismissed IPG Laser's counterclaim for revocation. The Court ordered 50% reimbursement of the court fees (€21,145) under R. 370.9(b) RoP, finding that the full reimbursement request was unfounded and that no cost decision was necessary since TRUMPF Laser had not yet been served.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG, Poststraße 10, 84378 Dietersburg, Germ v.Patentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte, LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
This order addresses a procedural question regarding jurisdiction over a cost decision application following an appeal in a patent infringement and revocation case concerning EP 2 548 648. The Court of Appeal dismissed Rematec's application to refer its cost decision request to the Court of First Instance, holding that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction over cost decisions, which must be filed before the Court of First Instance. The Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting a deviation from the general rule.
Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the lower court's order that had refused Amazon's request to produce a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional transcriber. The Court held that under Rule 115 RoP, a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing with the assistance of support staff such as a stenographer working in the presence and under supervision of the party or its representative. The Court further held that such private transcripts may be used in related proceedings outside the UPC, provided specific conditions regarding clear labeling and compliance with confidentiality orders are met.
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.