Short Summary
This order concerns the withdrawal of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The parties reached a settlement and jointly filed applications on December 20, 2024, to withdraw the proceedings following the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ruled that each party bears its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Detailed Summary
This case involved Panasonic Holdings Corporation, a Japanese company based in Osaka, as the plaintiff, against two defendants: Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., a Chinese company based in Dongguan, and OROPE Germany GmbH, based in Düsseldorf. The dispute concerned European Patent No. EP 2 568 724. The proceedings were conducted before the Local Chamber Mannheim, presided over by Prof. Dr. Tochtermann as the presiding judge and rapporteur, with German as the procedural language.
The subject matter of the order was the withdrawal of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation pursuant to Rule 265.1 sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure. After the final decision was issued on November 22, 2024, the parties reached a settlement and submitted joint applications on December 20, 2024, requesting the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the jointly filed counterclaim for revocation brought by the defendants.
& Analysis: The court accepted the withdrawal based on the unanimous will of the parties as expressed in their joint application letters dated December 20, 2024. With respect to Rule 265.2(c) of the Rules of Procedure, which requires a cost decision pursuant to Part 1 Chapter 5 of the Rules of Procedure, the court confirmed the cost arrangement agreed upon by the parties. Regarding the reimbursement of court costs, the court applied Rule 370.11 in conjunction with Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Because the withdrawal request was filed after the pronouncement of the final decision that concluded the oral proceedings, no basis for reimbursement of court costs existed.
Final Order & Ruling: The court ordered that (1) the withdrawal of the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation be permitted upon the parties' application; (2) the proceedings be declared terminated in their entirety; (3) the decision be entered in the register; (4) each party bear its own costs with no cost reimbursement between the parties; and (5) no fee reimbursement be granted. The order was signed by Prof. Dr. Tochtermann on February 3, 2025.
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 Panasonic Holdings Corporation vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Belparts Group N.V.vsIMI Hydronic International SA, IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance scheduling proceedings in an infringement action concerning European patent no. 3 812 870. The panel decided not to bifurcate the proceedings and will hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, setting an interim videoconference for 24 March 2026 and an in-person oral hearing in Munich for 18 June 2026.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.vsMicron Technology, Inc. a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Surf Loch LLCvsWhiteWater West Industries Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Surf Loch LLC's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in pending appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-75/2026) concerning EP 2 728 089. The court held that Surf Loch failed to demonstrate a direct interest that would outweigh the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing proceedings, as it was not involved in any current dispute concerning the patent and its reliance on terminated US IPR proceedings and abstract competitive interest was insufficient.
Adeia Guides Inc.vsRespondent
This procedural order concerns a deadline extension request in an infringement action involving European Patent EP1969839. The claimant, Adeia Guides Inc., filed exhibits 8 and 9 late on 5 August 2025, and sought a corresponding extension of deadlines. The defendants, comprising three Walt Disney entities, indicated they did not object provided their own subsequent deadlines were not shortened. The court granted the extension, determining that the relevant deadlines for the claimant's rejoinder and reply would begin on 5 August 2025.
Hologic, Inc.vsSiemens Healthineers AG a.o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 352 431 B1, in which the court rejected Hologic's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional brief formal comments on the Defendants' submissions dated September 24, 2025. The court held that the request was vague as Hologic failed to specify any new facts, and that Hologic's right to be heard was not unduly restricted since it retained the right to oppose the submissions and would have ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing.
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.