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
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.