Short Summary
This order concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance regarding the language of the proceedings under R.323 RoP. The Appellants (OPPO and OROPE Germany) filed a request on the last day of the time periods under R.224.1(b) and R.224.2(b) RoP for expedition of the appeal proceedings, seeking shortening of the time period for lodging the Statement of Response. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for expedition, holding that despite the procedural inconvenience, the interests of the Respondent and principles of due process required that the Statement of Response be filed in the normal time period, even though this meant the Statement of Defence in the first instance proceedings had to be lodged in the contested language of proceedings.
Detailed Summary
This case involves an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (case reference UPC_CoA_476/2023, App_594339/2023) concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The Appellants are Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH, represented by Mr. Rien Broekstra and Mr. Andreas Kramer of Vossius & Brinkhof UPC Litigators. The Respondent is Panasonic Holdings Corporation, represented by Ms. Miriam Kiefer of Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte. The appeal is directed against an order of the Court of First Instance dated 27 November 2023 concerning the language of the proceedings pursuant to R.323 RoP. Due to an obvious mistake in their Statement of Appeal and Statement of Grounds, the Appellants initially cited patent EP 3 096 315 instead of the correct patent in suit.
The central procedural dispute concerned the Appellants' request for expedition of the appeal proceedings, specifically seeking shortening of the time period for lodging the Statement of Response pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. This request was filed on the last day of the time periods under R.224.1(b) and R.224.2(b) RoP. The underlying issue related to the language of the proceedings, with the contested language requiring the Statement of Defence to be lodged in a particular language before the Court of First Instance.
& Analysis: The Court of Appeal addressed two preliminary matters. First, it determined that the panel could properly adjudicate the procedural request with three legally qualified judges alone, without technically qualified judges. The Court reasoned that under Art.9.1 UPCA, a panel of the Court of Appeal normally sits in a multinational composition of five judges (three legally qualified and two technically qualified). However, for procedural requests where no technical issues are at hand, adjudication by three legally qualified judges is consistent with the logic underlying the composition of panels of the Court of First Instance (Art.8 UPCA and R.33, 34, 37.3, 57 and 72 RoP) and by analogy with Art.9.2 UPCA. The Court further noted this approach ensures cost effectiveness, efficiency, and expeditious decisions (UPCA, 6th Consideration), avoiding the delay of allocating technically qualified judges. This was also in conformity with paragraphs 2 through 4 of the Preamble of the RoP, requiring application and interpretation of the Rules in accordance with Art.41(3), 42 and 52(1) UPCA based on principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity.
Final Order & Ruling: The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellants' request for shortening of the time period for lodging the Statement of Response. Despite the procedural consequence that the Statement of Defence in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance would have to be lodged in the contested language of proceedings, the Court held that the interests of the Respondent and principles of due process outweighed the Appellants' interest in expedition. The order was issued by the Second Panel, composed of Presiding Judge Rian Kalden, Judge Rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, and Judge Patricia Rombach, all legally qualified judges.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp.Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH vs Panasonic Holdings Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Insulet CorporationvsA. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/10/2024 Order no. ORD_51903/2024 Applicant EOFLOW CO LTD (intervener) defendants 1) Insulet Corporation (applicant in the main proceeding)
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, vertreten durch ihre GeschäftsfüvsRespondent
This case concerned a request for confirmation of a settlement between the parties in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The proceedings originated from an inspection and evidence preservation order obtained by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH against ANCA Europe GmbH at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026. After the expert's detailed description was disclosed and ANCA Europe raised no objections, the parties notified the court on August 3, 2026 that they had settled the dispute and requested the court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365(1)(2) RoP.
Visibly Inc.vsRespondent
Visibly Inc. appealed an order of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for legal costs in its patent infringement action against Easee. After the proceedings were stayed due to insolvency proceedings against the Easee companies, Visibly applied to withdraw the appeal citing an out-of-court settlement, to which Easee consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Visibly.
Establishment Labs S.A.vsGC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited Nagor Limited GC Aesthetics Management Limited GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited GC Aesthetics (France) SAS EuroSilicone SAS GC Aesthetics Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spai
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH (applicant) in ***, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited, *** and ***vsKoninklijke Philips N.V.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH applied for access to the case files of three related appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_683/2024, and UPC_CoA_19/2025) concerning European Patent EP 2 867 997, in which Koninklijke Philips N.V. had sued Belkin entities for patent infringement and Belkin had counterclaimed for revocation. Anker sought access to the written submissions and annexes, excluding confidential information, citing a parallel infringement action brought against it by Philips before the Local Division Munich. Philips did not oppose access to the technical arguments not subject to confidentiality orders, and Belkin raised no objections.
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.