statter Dr
10 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
10 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
This decision addresses the procedural competence regarding the withdrawal of a cost determination application in an ongoing UPC case. Although the main infringement and revocation proceedings have moved to the Appeal Court, the specific procedure for determining costs remains under the jurisdiction of the court of first instance's Rapporteur. The court confirmed its original authority to grant the request to withdraw the cost claim, thereby closing that phase of the litigation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a cost determination proceeding initiated by Edwards Lifesciences against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. While the court found that the respondents were liable for the procedural costs totaling EUR 244,000 (including amounts agreed upon in earlier proceedings), it definitively rejected the claimant's request to have these costs paid with interest. The ruling clarifies a critical distinction within UPC procedure: while damages claims may include compensation for time value of money, standard cost reimbursement does not automatically carry an interest component unless explicitly provided by law.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.
This UPC decision addresses a request for public access to case files by a third party (DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.). The court analyzed the balance between the applicant's interest in obtaining documents and the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing infringement proceedings. Ultimately, the court denied the access request, emphasizing that procedural fairness and confidentiality must prevail over speculative or indirect interests.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a request for trade secret protection (R. 262A VerfO) in connection with patent litigation involving Panasonic and OPPO/OROPE. The core dispute centered on the scope of confidentiality, specifically regarding licensing agreements and negotiations. While the court upheld some level of protection for sensitive information, it simultaneously limited access rights requested by the defendants to ensure procedural fairness across parallel UPC and national proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a motion for protective measures concerning confidential information related to patent licensing and FRAND negotiations in the case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court carefully balanced the claimant's need for secrecy regarding sensitive commercial data against the respondents' demands for broader access during litigation. Ultimately, the protection was partially granted, establishing strict rules on who can view the documents and for what purpose.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision is a procedural order in an infringement case involving Panasonic against OPPO and OROPE concerning an LTE patent (EP 2 568 724). The court highlighted the need for claimants to provide detailed technical interpretations of complex claims early in the proceedings. Crucially, the judge raised several doubts regarding the scope and necessity of the FRAND rate determination counterclaims filed by the respondents, signaling potential procedural hurdles for these types of ancillary requests.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning SEP EP 3096315, the court addressed a request by the defendants for extensive document disclosure related to the claimant's licensing history. The court ultimately rejected most of these requests, finding them too vague or superseded by the parties' own actions. This ruling reinforces the principle that while transparency is important in FRAND negotiations, broad demands for historical portfolio data are not automatically granted and must be narrowly tailored.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In a procedural ruling, the Mannheim Local Division addressed the complex interplay between infringement and invalidity claims in UPC case UPC_CFI_216/2023. The court decided to consolidate the proceedings, meaning that Panasonic's infringement claim will be heard alongside OROPE and OPPO's counterclaim for patent invalidity and FRAND licensing. This consolidation aims to ensure a unified legal interpretation across all issues, streamlining the litigation process.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this procedural order, the Lokalkammer Mannheim addressed the structure of a complex UPC case involving infringement and revocation claims against OPPO and OROPE. The court ruled that combining the infringement lawsuit with the counterclaim for non-validity (including FRAND licensing) was procedurally efficient and substantively advantageous. This decision sets an early precedent for managing multi-faceted disputes within the UPC framework.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In a procedural ruling, the Mannheim Local Division addressed the joint handling of claims in the case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The court decided to consolidate the infringement claim with the counterclaim for patent revocation and FRAND licensing. This decision emphasizes judicial efficiency by ensuring that both the validity and infringement aspects are judged under a single, unified interpretation by the same panel.
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.