Litigation
17 litigation decisions from Mannheim Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
17 cases | Page 1 of 1
Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH v.Centripetal Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Keysight's application for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP, allowing it to lodge an appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's decision not to rule on its conditional counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 821 580. The Court found that Keysight could not reasonably have been expected to file an appeal before the Court of Appeal's 16 July 2026 order in Emboline v. AorticLab clarified the procedural pathway for conditional counterclaimants. The Court also rejected Centripetal's request to shorten or modify the three-month time limit for filing the Statement of response under R. 235.1 RoP.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 3 471 419. Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against Meta Platforms and related entities, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested proportional reimbursement of court fees.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
This is a procedural decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 471 419. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions—Huawei's infringement action and the Meta defendants' counterclaim for revocation—and requested reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a proportional 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Verifone GmbH and others
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. concerning EP 4 277 422. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with the Verifone defendants and applied to withdraw the action with consent of all defendants. The court allowed the withdrawal, declined to issue a cost decision, set the value in dispute, and reduced the standard reimbursement rate of court fees from 50% to 40% based on exceptional circumstances.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Verifone GmbH & Others
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 397 009 against multiple Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with the Verifone defendants that also covered claims against Adyen, and applied to withdraw the action with the consent of all defendants. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and set the reimbursement rate of court fees at 40% rather than the standard 50%, resulting in a reimbursement of EUR 16,440.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Verifone GmbH & Others
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 506 479 against multiple defendants including Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with most defendants and applied to withdraw the action with the consent of all parties. The court allowed the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at EUR 3,000,000, and reduced the standard court fee reimbursement rate from 50% to 40% due to exceptional circumstances, ordering reimbursement of EUR 16,440 to the claimant.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd. et al.
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple defendants, including Transsion, Tecno, Infinix, and others, concerning European patent EP 4 277 422. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with Transsion and applied to withdraw the infringement action. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, declined to issue a cost order, and ordered reimbursement of 35% of the court fees (12,950 EUR) based on the exceptional circumstances of the case.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Windhager's appeal as inadmissible because its Statement of appeal was not electronically signed within the non-extendable two-month time period under Rule 224.1 RoP. The Court held that logging into the CMS with two-factor authentication does not satisfy the signature requirement under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that the signature requirement is not part of the formal examination under Rule 229 RoP. Windhager's belated application for re-establishment of rights was also rejected as inadmissible.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company, Disney Electronic Content, Inc. et al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned enforcement proceedings related to EP 2 465 265. The claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., withdrew its request dated 23 July 2026 for the imposition of penalty payments on the various Disney defendants. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the enforcement proceedings closed, and ordered the claimant to bear the costs.
Kodak Holding GmbH & Others v.Fujifilm Corporation
This case concerns enforcement proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, where Kodak appealed penalty orders imposed by the Mannheim Local Division for alleged non-compliance with an injunction in patent infringement proceedings brought by Fujifilm. Following the Court of Appeal's earlier decision on the merits setting aside the Mannheim Local Division's decision and finding that Kodak did not infringe the patent due to a private prior use right, the Court of Appeal held that the revocation of the underlying decision had retroactive effect, removing the legal basis for the penalty orders. The Court set aside the impugned orders, set the value of the enforcement proceedings at one million Euro, ordered Fujifilm to bear Kodak's legal costs, and ordered the refund of penalty payments already made.
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
ORDER
Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Respondent
DECISION
Rematec GmbH & Co KG, Poststraße 10, 84378 Dietersburg, Germ v.Patentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte
ORDER
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
This case concerns an application by IPG Laser to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, which had found infringement of EP 2 951 625 and dismissed IPG Laser's counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (€21,145) to IPG Laser, while finding that no cost decision was required.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This Order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses a procedural question regarding jurisdiction over a cost decision application filed by Rematec following its successful appeal. The Court of Appeal held that it lacks jurisdiction over the cost decision application, which must instead be filed before the Court of First Instance (Mannheim Local Division). The application to refer the cost decision to the CFI with a deemed filing date was dismissed.
Amazon.com, Inc. and others v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional stenographer, based on an audio recording under Rule 115 RoP. The Court of Appeal overturned the Court of First Instance's order and held that producing a private transcript is permissible, provided it is clearly labeled as a private, non-authoritative document and used under specified conditions.
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.