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
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.