Short Summary
This order concerns a procedural dispute in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP 3 024 163 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The defendants, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH, requested an extension of the deadline to file their Duplik (reply) to the infringement claim, the reply to the counterclaim for revocation, and the response to the patent amendment request, until September 17, 2024. The court found that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' of its reply, with redacted portions serving as placeholders for later submissions, was impermissible, but granted an exception since this issue was being addressed for the first time.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Munich in case UPC_CFI_221/2023, concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163, held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The main infringement proceedings were brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation (plaintiff) against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH (defendants). The order was issued on July 10, 2024, by Presiding Judge and Rapporteur Matthias Zigann, with a panel consisting of legally qualified judges Tobias Pichlmaier and Andras Kupecz, and technically qualified judge Kerstin Roselinger. The procedural language was German.
The defendants (Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH) jointly requested an extension of the deadline to file their Duplik on the infringement claim, their reply to the counterclaim for revocation, and their response to the request for amendment of the patent, until September 17, 2024. The basis for this request was that neither the court nor the defendants had received a fully unredacted version of the plaintiff's reply in the infringement proceedings. The version submitted as the 'unredacted version' contained numerous redactions, with the redacted portions serving as placeholders for submissions to be filed later. The plaintiff (Panasonic) opposed the extension, arguing in a seven-page submission that most of the information was already available to the defendants, that the redactions affected only a relatively small portion that could be considered separately from the unredacted parts, and that the defendants were therefore not prevented from preparing their Duplik with respect to the unredacted portions. The plaintiff further argued that no extension was justified regarding the technology-related reply, as the unredacted technology reply had been available to the defendants immediately upon filing.
& Analysis:
The court first addressed a procedural note, clarifying that although only the first defendant (Guangdong OPPO) was entered as the applicant in the case management system (CMS), the PDF submission clearly showed that the request was made by both defendants. On the substantive issue, the court found that the plaintiff's chosen approach—filing a redacted 'unredacted version' of the reply with redacted portions serving as placeholders for later submissions—was impermissible. The court cited supporting precedent from the Local Chamber Mannheim (order dated June 13, 2024, in cases APP 35009/2024 and APP 35013/2024 in UPC CFI 219/2023) and from the Local Chamber Munich itself (order dated July 4, 2024, in APP_21945/2024 and App_33754/2024 in UPC_CFI_220/2023). However, the court recognized that since this issue was being addressed by the court for the first time in the present proceedings, an exception had to be made. The text of the order is cut off before the full reasoning and final ruling on the extension request are completed.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Applicant ***vsRespondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for review challenging the Registrar's refusal to enter the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted a CEIPI certificate dated 8 July 2022, which predated the Administrative Committee's November 2023 accreditation decision under Rule 1 of the EPLC Rules. The Court held that there is no de facto continuity between an accredited course under Rule 1 and a course referenced in Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules, and therefore the applicant did not possess a valid certificate at the time of filing.
Yves Prevoo, Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V.vsVisibly Inc.
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 918 974 concerning a method and system for determining corrective lens prescriptions, brought an infringement action against Easee B.V., its managing director Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. concerning an online vision test offered via a software application. The defendants raised a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP challenging the court's jurisdiction over the personal liability claim against the individual director. The Hamburg Local Chamber held that an alleged patent infringement constitutes a tort within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, and that the UPC therefore has jurisdiction over director liability claims under Article 32 UPCA.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd.vsRespondent
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal by several Apple entities against an order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) dated June 18, 2024, which rejected a request to change the language of proceedings to the language in which European Patent EP 2 263 098 was granted. The order addresses a Rule 36 application filed by the respondent Ona Patents SL, seeking to disregard the appellants' reply filed on August 15, 2024, or alternatively to be granted an extension to respond. The court reasoned that under Rule 239.2 RoP, the written procedure in appeal proceedings is concluded when the judge summons the parties to oral hearing, and any Rule 36 request for further submissions must be filed before that date.
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., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, TCL DeutschlanvsRespondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 9 April 2025 Application: 17158/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Corning - US represented by: Dr. Marcus Grosch, Qui
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbHvsCorning Incorporated
The Court of Appeal dismissed a request for discretionary review filed by Hisense, TCL, and LG against an order of the Mannheim Local Division refusing to separate infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 296 274. The defendants had sought separation to prevent the disclosure of sensitive supply chain information among competing companies, citing potential EU competition law conflicts. The Court of Appeal held that separation is not the only means to protect confidential information, as restricted access under R. 262A RoP and confidentiality agreements between parties are available alternatives.
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.