Short Summary
Before the Local Chamber Mannheim, the parties — Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH as defendants — reached a settlement and jointly withdrew the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent No. EP 2 568 724. The withdrawal was filed after the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Detailed Summary
This case (UPC_CFI_210/2023) was decided by the Local Chamber Mannheim on February 3, 2025, by Presiding Judge and Rapporteur Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, in German language proceedings.
The plaintiff was Panasonic Holdings Corporation of Osaka, Japan. The defendants were Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. of Dongguan, China, and OROPE Germany GmbH of Düsseldorf, Germany. The patent in dispute was European Patent No. EP 2 568 724.
The subject matter of the order was the withdrawal of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation pursuant to R. 265.1 sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure.
According to the facts, the parties had reached a settlement and withdrew the infringement action as well as the jointly filed counterclaim for revocation by the defendants, following the issuance of the final decision of November 22, 2024.
In its reasoning, the court held that the decision followed the unanimously expressed will of the parties as set out in their joint request letters dated December 20, 2024. To the extent that R. 265.2(c) of the Rules of Procedure required a cost decision pursuant to Part 1 Chapter 5 of the Rules of Procedure, the court confirmed the cost agreement reached by the parties. Regarding the reimbursement of court costs, the court relied on R. 370.11 in conjunction with R. 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Since the withdrawal request was made after the pronouncement of the final decision concluding the oral proceedings, no grounds for reimbursement existed.
The operative part of the order provided: (1) the withdrawal of the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation was permitted at the parties' request; (2) the proceedings were declared terminated in their entirety; (3) the decision was to be entered in the register; (4) each party was to bear its own costs with no cost reimbursement between the parties; and (5) no reimbursement of court fees was to take place.
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 Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaAvsBrainPortfolio Inc. & BrainRobotics Inc.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The order summons the represented parties to an oral hearing scheduled for April 22, 2026, and sets non-extendable deadlines for the applicant to reply to the respondents' opposition by March 9, 2026, and for the respondents to surrebut by March 23, 2026.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KGvsLight Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by the defendants to suspend proceedings pending parallel opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office concerning EP 3 685 783 B1 (an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies). The court rejected the suspension request, holding that suspension under Rule 295 RoP is generally not warranted when the UPC oral hearing precedes the EPO Opposition Division hearing, nor is it necessarily required merely because the Opposition Division revoked the patent between the UPC hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date. The court also admitted the plaintiff's late-filed auxiliary requests and appointed a court expert under Rule 185 RoP to resolve disputed technical questions regarding the accused embodiment.
Abbott Laboratories and OthersvsDexCom, Inc (UPC_CoA_5/2024)
The Abbott entities appealed a confidentiality order issued by the Paris Local Division in patent infringement proceedings brought by DexCom, contesting the €50,000 penalty ceiling as too low and seeking to raise it to €250,000. The President of the Court of Appeal held that under Rule 220.2 RoP, the appeal required leave from the Court of First Instance, which had not been granted, rendering the appeal inadmissible from the outset and incapable of being withdrawn.
Meril GmbHvsEdwards Lifesciences Corporation u. a.
Unified Patent Court decision.
SAS LASER COMPONENTSvsSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.