Short Summary
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action related to EP 2 936 439. All parties agreed to a uniform fictitious service date of 1 September 2025 for all Defendants, avoiding service abroad on Defendant 2 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.). The court granted the agreed extension of procedural deadlines, setting new dates for preliminary objections, statements of defence, and the Claimant's reply.
Detailed Summary
This is a procedural order issued by Judge-Rapporteur Böttcher of the Mannheim Local Division on 27 August 2025 in a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_453/2025) concerning European patent EP 2 936 439. The Claimant is Eyesmatch Ltd., and the Defendants are Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics France SAS, Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A., and Samsung Electronics Nordic AB.
The dispute concerned a request for a new time period regime and new service dates. Service on Defendants 1, 3, 4, and 5 (the European Samsung entities) had been effected between 2 and 5 August 2025. All parties agreed that service on all Defendants should be deemed to have been effected uniformly on 1 September 2025. The UPC representatives of Defendants 1, 3, 4, and 5 also accepted service on behalf of Defendant 2 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., based in South Korea), thereby avoiding the need for service abroad. The agreement also included an extension of the time period for the Claimant's reply and its defence to a possible counterclaim for revocation.
Defendants 1, 3, 4, and 5 requested: (I) a uniform fictitious date of service of 1 September 2025 for all Defendants; (II) a deadline of 1 December 2025 for filing the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation; (III) a deadline of 1 October 2025 for filing the Preliminary Objection; and (IV) an extension of the Claimant's deadline for filing the Reply and Defence to Counterclaim for Revocation by two additional weeks.
The court, citing established case law of the LD Mannheim (referencing prior orders from April and May 2025), held that agreements between parties aimed at facilitating service abroad and/or harmonizing the time period regime are regularly accepted. The court reasoned that without a uniform time period regime, different time periods would apply in individual procedural relationships throughout the written procedure, making proceedings management more difficult. Avoiding service abroad also speeds up the overall proceedings, consistent with the principles of a swift and efficient procedure.
The court granted the request and ordered: (1) For Defendant 2, on which service had not yet been effected, the service date was set at 1 September 2025, with the preliminary objection deadline of 1 October 2025 and the statement of defence deadline of 1 December 2025; (2) For Defendants 1, 3, 4, and 5, the time periods for filing a preliminary objection were extended until 1 October 2025 and for filing the statement of defence until 1 December 2025; (3) For the Claimant, the time period for filing the reply in the infringement proceedings and the defence to a possible counterclaim for revocation was extended until 16 February 2026. The court noted that since the time period for filing a counterclaim for revocation automatically aligns with the statement of defence deadline, no separate extension was necessary.
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 Samsung Electronics GmbH & Others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TIRUvsMAGUIN SAS
TIRU, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration installation, sought an ex parte order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court for the preservation of evidence and site inspection against MAGUIN SAS. TIRU alleged that MAGUIN had supplied a furnace to VALINEA ENERGIE (a VEOLIA subsidiary) that infringed its patent. The court granted the application, ordering the appointment of an expert to conduct the seizure at MAGUIN's premises, subject to a €10,000 guarantee and execution by January 17, 2025.
Occlutech GmbHvsLepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B1. The applicant Occlutech GmbH sought interim measures against the respondents Lepu Medical entities, who raised both infringement and validity objections. The court ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel under Art. 8(5) sentence 2 EPGÜ and R. 34 RoP, with the consent of all parties.
Cardo Systems, Ltd.vsShenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
This order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed the issue of service of process on Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd., a defendant domiciled in China, in a patent infringement action concerning EP 4 240 194. Service attempts via the Hague Service Convention were rejected twice by the Chinese central authority on the formal ground that the documents did not use the full name 'Hong Kong, China' when referring to Hong Kong. The court held that Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention is fully applicable in the UPC system and declared the steps already taken to constitute valid service, ordering publication of the order on the court's website.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vsZhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd and Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants after Defendant 1 failed to lodge an objection within the prescribed time period, while Defendant 2's objection was considered on the merits. The court ordered both defendants to cease infringement, with additional information and penalty payment orders against Defendant 1.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H.vsbellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Windhager's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Mannheim, which had largely upheld bellissa's infringement claim regarding EP 2 223 589 and dismissed Windhager's revocation counterclaim. The court found that Windhager failed to demonstrate that the first instance decision contained obvious errors or that its interest in staying enforcement outweighed bellissa's interest in preventing patent infringement. The pending new revocation action before the Central Chamber Milan was deemed irrelevant at this stage.
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.