in Kerstin Roselinger erlassen
3 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
3 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned a request by Panasonic Holdings Corporation to review the amount of court fee reimbursement following the withdrawal of its patent infringement actions against Xiaomi and OPPO entities. After an out-of-court settlement in late 2024, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims, and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge had granted only 40%, and the panel confirmed this decision, finding that the exceptionally complex nature of the dispute justified the reduced reimbursement under Rule 370.9(e).
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed patent infringement actions against Xiaomi and OPPO entities before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 024 163. After an out-of-court settlement at the end of 2024, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The rapporteur granted only 40%, and Panasonic sought review under Rule 333 EPGVerfO. The panel confirmed the 40% reimbursement, finding the case an extraordinary one under Rule 370.9(e) due to its exceptional complexity and the court's above-average workload.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court denied Panasonic Holdings Corporation's request under Rule 305 RoP to add OTECH Germany GmbH as a third defendant to its patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 024 163. The court found the request to add the new party was filed late and that the circumstances did not justify allowing the late addition, given the advanced stage of the proceedings and the potential prejudice to the existing defendants. The court permitted appeal, as the relevant questions had not yet been clarified by the Court of Appeal.
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.