Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
Corning Incorporated brought a patent infringement action against Hisense, TCL, and LG before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 296 274. All defendants were initially represented by the same legal counsel. The defendants requested separation of proceedings under R. 303.2 RoP, arguing that defending against Corning's allegations would require disclosure of sensitive supply chain information, and that sharing such information among competing groups of companies could create conflicts with EU competition law.
The judge-rapporteur rejected the request for separation and ordered the defendants to submit a single Statement of defence. The judge-rapporteur held that the potential conflicts arose solely from the defendants' decision to be represented by identical counsel, and that it was the representative's obligation to organize proceedings internally to avoid such conflicts. The judge-rapporteur further noted that the representative could exchange individualized versions of the Statement of defence with each group of clients to maintain confidentiality. The panel of the Court of First Instance confirmed this order on panel review and did not grant leave to appeal. Subsequently, Hisense changed counsel and was represented by a different law firm.
Hisense, TCL, and LG then filed a request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP and an application for suspensive effect. They argued that the panel violated R. 333.4 RoP by not addressing their arguments, that the decision would impact the UPC's handling of antitrust-relevant information, that confidentiality agreements and access restrictions were insufficient, and that the fundamental right to be heard would be impaired if they had to restrict their presentation of facts to protect sensitive business information.
The Court of Appeal, presided by Standing Judge Patricia Rombach, dismissed the request for discretionary review as admissible but unfounded. The court held that while parties can have a legitimate interest in maintaining confidentiality of business information, separation of proceedings is not the only option available. The court noted that under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262A RoP, the court may order that access to confidential information be restricted to specific persons, and that parties may also conclude confidentiality agreements among themselves. The court further held that any residual risk of confidentiality breaches is largely mitigated by granting full access only to trustworthy individuals, citing the UPC Court of Appeal's earlier decision in Daedalus vs Xiaomi (12 February 2025). The court found no misuse of discretionary power and emphasized that procedural economy may justify not separating proceedings.
Regarding the requirement to submit a single Statement of defence, the court noted this was not the subject of the discretionary review request. The court observed that with Hisense now represented by a different lawyer, a new situation had arisen, and the respective representatives could each lodge a Statement of defence on behalf of the defendants they represent, if necessary with redacted versions. The application for suspensive effect was deemed devoid of purpose following the rejection of the discretionary review request.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH vs Corning Incorporated 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.