statter Dr
10 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
10 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE – Withdrawal of Cost Assessment Application v.Ex Parte
This order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court addressed the withdrawal of a cost assessment application filed by Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. While the main infringement and revocation proceedings had been appealed to the Court of Appeal, the cost assessment application remained pending at first instance. The Rapporteur held that the first-instance court retained jurisdiction over the withdrawal of the cost assessment application, and that the Rapporteur alone had original competence under Rule 156.2 RoP to allow the withdrawal.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
This is a cost determination order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction proceeding. The parties had agreed out of court on the reimbursement amounts (EUR 195,000 for first instance representation, EUR 11,000 in court fees, and EUR 38,000 for appeal representation), totaling EUR 244,000. The sole disputed issue was whether Edwards was entitled to interest on the reimbursed costs at five percentage points above the German base rate. The court rejected the interest claim, holding that neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure provide a legal basis for interest in cost determination proceedings.
In re Request by DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o. for Access to Case Files (SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH)
DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o., a competitor of the claimant SWARCO Futurit, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure to the pleadings and evidence in an ongoing patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717. The Local Chamber Vienna denied the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings and the protection of personal data outweighed DMV's asserted information interest, as DMV failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest justifying access.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement case involving EP 2 568 724. The court partially granted Panasonic's confidentiality requests regarding license negotiations and third-party patent license agreements, while rejecting broader requests. The court defined the scope of the confidentiality club, allowing access to procedural representatives in Mannheim and Munich proceedings and three named reliable persons.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 568 724, addressing Panasonic's request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure regarding information contained in its unredacted reply and annexes, as well as licensing negotiations between the parties. The defendants (OPPO) contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for additional personnel and external counsel. The court granted partial confidentiality protection, defining a limited confidentiality club and restricting use of the protected information to UPC proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, relating to LTE mobile communication technology. The court issued directions and questions to the parties regarding claim interpretation under Rule 13(1)(n) RoP, the patent proprietor's response to the nullity counterclaim, the strict preclusion rule under Rule 30.2 RoP for patent amendments, and the legal interest (Rechtsschutzbedürfnis) for the defendants' FRAND counterclaim seeking determination of license rates.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 3096315, in which the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) sought production of various license agreements under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure to support their FRAND defense. The court rejected the defendants' production requests as overly broad fishing expeditions, while reserving the right to issue production orders at a later stage depending on further submissions.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding European Patent EP 2 568 724, deciding to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3)(a) UPCA to combine these proceedings for reasons of efficiency and procedural economy.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) UPCA, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's nascent operational situation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, in which Panasonic Holdings Corporation (plaintiff) brought an infringement action against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (defendants). The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 RoP in conjunction with Art. 33(3) UPCA, to jointly hear the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim rather than bifurcating the 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.