Short Summary
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 4 184 443 B1. The court found the Claimant's estimated value of the infringement action (2,000,000 euros) manifestly too low given that the alleged infringement concerned the Defendants' mobile or computing devices across all 18 UPC Contracting Member States, and provisionally set the value at 4,000,000 euros. Both parties raised no objections, and the Claimant was ordered to pay an additional value-based court fee of 17,200 euros.
Detailed Summary
This is a procedural order issued on 22 May 2026 by Judge Daniel Severinsson, acting as judge-rapporteur, at the Local Division Mannheim of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, in case UPC_CFI_808/2026. The proceedings were conducted in English.
The Claimant, Eyesmatch Ltd (a British Virgin Islands company represented by Holger Stratmann of HOFFMANN EITLE), brought a patent infringement action against two Defendants: Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited (both represented by Marcus Grosch of Quinn Emanuel). The patent at issue was European patent no. EP 4 184 443 B1.
The subject of the proceedings was the provisional value of the dispute in the patent infringement action. The Court considered the Claimant's estimated value of the infringement action, set at 2,000,000 euros, to be manifestly too low. The Court's reasoning was that the alleged infringement concerned the Defendants' mobile or computing devices in all 18 UPC Contracting Member States, which warranted a higher valuation. According to the Court's preliminary view, the value of the infringement action should provisionally be set at an estimated 4,000,000 euros.
The parties submitted that they did not have any objections to the Court's provisional assessment. Against this background, the Court ordered the Claimant to pay an additional value-based court fee in the amount of 17,200 euros (calculated as 34,400 minus 17,200).
The final order: (1) The provisional value of the infringement action was set to 4,000,000 euros; and (2) The Claimant was ordered to pay an additional value-based court fee of 17,200 euros.
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 Eyesmatch Ltd. vs Google Ireland Limited et. al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Volkswagen AGvsNetwork System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Volkswagen AG's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to dismiss infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Volkswagen had raised preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and the validity of opt-out withdrawals, and had sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP on grounds that NST lacked standing and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to defer preliminary objections to the main proceedings, and that Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and does not require a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
SodaStream Industries Ltd.vsAarke AB
The defendant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court sought security for costs of EUR 400,000, arguing that the Israeli claimant's foreign domicile created enforcement risks and that the claimant initiated proceedings to cause material harm. The claimant, part of the PepsiCo group, opposed the request, citing its financial strength and the applicability of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure. The court dismissed the request, holding that the mere location of the claimant's registered office in Israel and unsubstantiated doubts about compliance with a future cost decision did not justify ordering security for costs.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbHvsPanasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns an application by Panasonic Holdings Corporation for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 024 163. Panasonic sought to classify certain information related to ongoing FRAND license negotiations with the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) as strictly confidential, including grey-highlighted submissions and exhibits labeled 'Anlagen KAP FRAND'. The defendants requested that access to such confidential information be restricted to specific named persons. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann of the Local Chamber Munich.
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTDvsDISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This order concerns a dispute over access restrictions under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 479 680. Defendants AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYLO Freesites Ltd sought to restrict the plaintiffs' (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) access to confidential information contained in their reply to the complaint dated 13 May 2024 and the attached annex BPV 5. The defendants argued that access should be limited to a maximum of three reliable natural persons on the plaintiffs' side, excluding their legal representatives, and that the three in-house counsel named by the plaintiffs were unsuitable due to the risk of misuse of confidential information for the plaintiffs' patent monetization program.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o.vsValeo Electrification
Procedural Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, addressing the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the Defendants' (Magna entities) request to classify certain information contained in their Objection and related exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited group of the Applicant's (Valeo Electrification) representatives. The court rejected Valeo's objection that the same information had already been publicly disclosed in Stuttgart Regional Court proceedings in 2023, finding that the information in question was different.
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.