Short Summary
Corning Incorporated filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 296 274 against multiple defendants including Hisense, TCL, and LG entities before the Mannheim Local Division. During the written procedure, Corning requested partial withdrawal of the infringement action against the LG defendants (Defendants 7-9), who in turn requested withdrawal of their counterclaim for revocation. The court permitted both withdrawals, closed the proceedings against the LG defendants, and ordered each side to bear their own costs regarding the withdrawn portions.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns EP 3 296 274 and was heard before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Corning Incorporated (the Claimant) filed an infringement action (UPC_CFI_819/2024) on 18 December 2024 against nine defendants: Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., and LG Electronics European Holding B.V. Defendants 3 to 9 (the TCL and LG entities) filed a joint counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_414/2025) on 13 May 2025.
In a brief dated 12 September 2025, Corning requested permission to partially withdraw the infringement action against Defendants 7 to 9 (the LG entities) and to have the proceedings against them declared closed. Defendants 7 to 9 did not contest this request and themselves requested permission to withdraw their counterclaim for revocation against Corning, with the proceedings between them declared closed. Corning did not contest the defendants' request. Neither party requested a cost decision regarding the partial withdrawals.
The court, presided over by Judge-Rapporteur Tobias Sender, based its decision on Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure. The court noted that under R. 265.1 RoP, a claimant may withdraw an action as long as a final decision has not been issued, and this also applies to partial withdrawals against some of several defendants. Regarding costs under R. 265.2(c) RoP, the court explained that while a cost decision is generally not required when an action is withdrawn in its entirety and no party requests one, this principle does not apply when only some parties are withdrawn. In such cases, it is essential to ensure remaining parties are not burdened with costs from the withdrawn portion, which must be considered in the final cost decision.
The court ordered: (1) the withdrawal of the infringement action against Defendants 7 to 9 is permitted, with the action continuing against Defendants 1 to 6; (2) the infringement proceedings against Defendants 7 to 9 are closed; (3) the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation by Defendants 7 to 9 is permitted, with the counterclaim by Defendants 3 to 6 continuing; (4) the counterclaim proceedings by Defendants 7 to 9 are closed; (5) Corning and Defendants 7 to 9 bear their respective court fees and own costs regarding the withdrawn proceedings; and (6) the decision is to be entered in the register.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Corning Incorporated vs Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH. et. al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KGvsLight Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Biolitec, the proprietor of European patent EP 3 685 783, sought provisional measures against the Lightguide companies for alleged patent infringement. The Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) refused the provisional measures by order of 5 September 2024. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld this refusal, finding that Biolitec had not demonstrated that provisional measures were necessary because proceedings on the merits could be awaited, and that the requested measures would change a market status quo established years before the patent's grant.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KGvsRespondent
Divisione Locale di Milano DECISIONE del Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti Tribunale di primo grado relativa al brevetto EP EP2145848 Attore in contraffazione e convenuto in nullità Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid – DE Rappresentato dag
LiNA Medical AGvsTonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 593 025 B1, which was executed at the Defendant's booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf. After the expert delivered its detailed description, the Defendant had not logged into the CMS despite having received an access code, preventing it from commenting on confidentiality interests. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the unredacted detailed description to the Applicant, lifting the confidentiality order, as the Defendant bore the responsibility to appoint a UPC representative to access the CMS.
Horl 1993 GmbHvsMagna-Tec e.K.
Horl 1993 GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 4 117 857 B1 concerning a roller sharpener (Rollschleifer), brought a patent infringement action against Magna-Tec e.K. before the Local Chamber Hamburg. The court addressed key legal questions regarding the burden of substantiation for infringement claims relating to non-UPCA contracting states and the conditions under which a claimant is entitled to publication of the judgment. The decision was rendered following an oral hearing on 19 March 2026.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Wim Maas and David Mulder, at Taylor Wessing N.V., Parnassusvsincrease in financial loss. Once infringement has commenced,, economic damage during the proceedings - without the injured
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. in the Milan Local Division, seeking an injunction based on EP 3 076 673 B1 relating to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology. The application was filed during ongoing main proceedings on the merits that had commenced in June 2024. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, finding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new or supervening circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were nearing their final stages.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.