Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning patent EP 3 296 274, in which defendants from the Hisense, TCL, and LG groups sought a stay of proceedings under R. 295(m) RoP pending a related action against the alleged glass manufacturer. The court rejected the stay applications, finding no obligation to sue OEMs and their suppliers jointly, and ordered the parties to use a single workflow for future submissions.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order, issued on 2 April 2025 by the Local Division Mannheim (UPC_CFI_819/2024), concerns patent EP 3 296 274 held by Claimant Corning Incorporated. The defendants, comprising companies from three groups (Hisense, TCL, and LG), all represented by the same counsel (Bird & Bird LLP), filed applications for a stay of proceedings under R. 295(m) RoP in multiple workflows.
The defendants' main request was to stay the proceedings until a decision in a parallel action (ACT_66849/2024; UPC_CFI_820/2024) against the alleged manufacturer of glass sheets used in LCD-TVs became final and binding. As an auxiliary request, they sought to combine both proceedings and stay until service upon the defendants in China and Hong Kong, SAR was effected. The defendants argued that Corning was artificially splitting connected cases to expedite service, which would limit their ability to defend since they were mere distributors of LCD-TVs with no direct contractual relationship with the glass manufacturer and no knowledge of the chemical composition of the glass sheets. They further contended that suing three independent companies together would violate the principle of fair trial and that Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA required suing producer and supplier together.
Corning opposed the stay applications, characterizing them as attempts to delay proceedings. Corning argued that accepting the defendants' arguments would deprive it of its right to effectively enforce its patent rights given the limited lifespan of the patent. Corning maintained there was no obligation to sue OEMs and their suppliers jointly, and that the infringement action was based on investigations of the marketed products of defendants, which defendants themselves could also analyze.
The court rejected the stay applications on multiple grounds. First, it found no obligation always to sue OEMs and suppliers in one proceeding, noting it is common practice to initiate separate proceedings, especially where service may be easy upon some defendants but problematic with others. The court noted that if filed jointly, the Local Division would typically separate proceedings to allow practical enforcement. Second, the court found the defendants' reference to fair trial principles vague and unsubstantiated, noting defendants could obtain knowledge of their own products or reach out to suppliers for information. Third, the reference to Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA was found unpersuasive as alleged lack of jurisdiction does not call for a stay. Fourth, the question of whether all glass sheets used by the defendant groups are identical was deemed a substantive matter to be addressed in the further course of proceedings.
Additionally, the court addressed procedural concerns, noting there was no plausible reason for defendants to file identical requests in multiple workflows when represented by identical counsel. The court ordered that, unless the Rules of Procedure explicitly demand otherwise, the parties use one single workflow of the CMS to submit requests and arguments, clarifying on behalf of which party the submission is being made. The court warned that disobedience could result in penalty payments under R. 354.3 and 4 RoP, denial or decrease of fee reimbursement under R. 370.9(e) RoP, and cost allocation under Art. 69 UPCA.
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, 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., LG Electronics European Holding B.V. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & OthersvsEstablishment Labs S.A.
This case concerns a Preliminary Objection filed by 13 defendants associated with GC Aesthetics challenging the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) jurisdiction over alleged infringements of EP 3 107 487 B1 in non-UPC contracting states (Ireland, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). The defendants argued that the claimant, Establishment Labs S.A., relied solely on the domicile of Defendant 13 (Romed N.V.) in Belgium without evidencing any activities in non-UPC countries. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the Preliminary Objection, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction over all national designations of the European patent when at least one defendant is rightfully sued before the UPC, and that the substantive assessment of infringement in those territories belongs to the merits stage.
Dolby International ABvsBeko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 605 534 B1. The court granted the plaintiff Dolby International AB's application under R. 36 RoP for leave to file a further written submission addressing the FRAND objection raised by the defendants Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. The court found the additional submission appropriate for reasons of fairness, equity, efficiency, and the right to be heard, noting no prejudice to the defendants and no procedural delay.
Unnamed Applicant (Member of the Public)vsMeril Life Sciences PVT Limited (UPC_CFI_380/2023)
An unnamed member of the public, represented by Erik Krahbichler, applied for access to all written pleadings and evidence in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_380/2023) between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril et al. concerning EP 3 769 722. After the parties objected and Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited requested reimbursement of EUR 17,168.70 in legal costs, the Applicant withdrew the applications. The judge-rapporteur closed the proceedings on the access applications and dismissed the requests for reimbursement of legal costs, holding that Article 69 UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering a member of the public to reimburse costs incurred by parties consulted under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
Cretes NVvsHyler BV
This case before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerned the confirmation of a settlement agreement reached between the parties in parallel infringement and validity proceedings, along with the related question of court fee reimbursement. Both parties requested 40% reimbursement of their already paid court fees of €11,000, but the court determined that each party was entitled to only €2,000, taking into account the outstanding court fees of €4,000 per party that would have become due if no settlement had been reached.
UERAN Technology LLCvsXiaomi Corporation et al.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 385 739. Defendant Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH requested a uniform deadline regime for all defendants and a two-week extension of the replication and duplication deadlines to account for Christmas and Easter holidays. The court granted the application, noting that service proofs for several defendants were still outstanding and reserving the right to subsequently shorten deadlines if representation of the remaining defendants is not promptly assumed.
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.