Short Summary
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to radio communication devices and methods essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a revocation counterclaim and a FRAND counterclaim seeking court-determined license terms. The Local Chamber Mannheim found partial infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim and the FRAND counterclaim, and ordered the defendants to bear the costs.
Detailed Summary
This case was decided by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court on November 22, 2024 (case number UPC_CFI_210/2023), concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1 directed to a radio communication device and method.
The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation (formerly Panasonic Corporation, renamed on April 1, 2022), is the parent company of the Panasonic group founded in 1918. The defendants are Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (the OPPO group entity responsible for the mobile communications business, headquartered in Dongguan, China, with its European headquarters in Düsseldorf) and OROPE Germany GmbH (founded June 6, 2019, registered in Düsseldorf, which jointly operates the OPPO European headquarters with the first defendant).
The patent in suit was filed on August 13, 2008, claiming priority from JP 2007211548 (August 14, 2007) and JP 2008025535 (February 5, 2008), and was granted on December 17, 2014. It is in force in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden. The plaintiff asserted that the patent is essential to the 4G standard and that all 4G-capable mobile devices of the defendants, particularly the OPPO Find X5 Pro smartphone and 4G-capable smartwatches, infringe the patent. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, recall, removal from distribution channels, destruction, information/accounting, publication of the judgment, a finding of liability for damages, and provisional damages of EUR 250,000.
The plaintiff had contacted the OPPO group in July 2019 and had been unsuccessfully negotiating a FRAND license for its 4G patents with the first defendant. The defendants raised a revocation counterclaim seeking to invalidate the patent and a FRAND counterclaim seeking a court-determined FRAND license on terms they considered appropriate.
The oral hearing took place on October 7 and 8, 2024. The panel consisted of Presiding Judge Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, legally qualified judges Böttcher and Brinkman, and technically qualified judge Loibner. The procedural language was German.
In its operative order, the court: (A) partially upheld the infringement action, granting certain claims for injunction, recall, removal, destruction, information/accounting, and a finding of damages liability, while dismissing the remainder of the infringement claim; (B) dismissed the revocation counterclaim; (C) dismissed the FRAND counterclaim; (D) ordered the defendants to bear the costs of the proceedings; (E) set the dispute value at a specified amount; and (F) made the orders for injunction, recall, removal, and destruction enforceable only after the plaintiff posts a specified security (by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU credit institution) and provides a certified translation of the orders into the official language of the relevant contracting member state. The decision is subject to appeal within two months of service.
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
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland LimitedvsKeeex SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed as inadmissible an appeal filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division requiring Keeex SAS to provide a security for costs of €50,000 in connection with a patent infringement action based on EP 2 949 070. The Court held that under Rule 220.2 RoP, an order for security for costs can only be appealed either together with the main decision or with prior authorization from the Court of First Instance, and that the erroneous reference to Rule 220.1 RoP in the contested order did not cure Adobe's failure to seek such authorization.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbHvsDyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja sought, and Dyson agreed to, either a suspension of the cost assessment proceedings or alternatively an extension of the deadline to file a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction and ordering Dyson to pay SharkNinja's costs. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests as inadmissible, holding that the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP to file a cost assessment application begins with service of the substantive decision in the main proceedings, not with service of an order on interim measures.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)vsHisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et al.
This is a rectification decision issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 27 April 2026 in case UPC_CFI_716/2025 concerning European Patent EP 2 258 692 B1. The Court corrected a calculation error in Section V of its earlier order dated 16 February 2026, finding that 60% of the court fees amounted to €18,600 rather than the previously stated €14,400.
Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
This order concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant. The court permitted the withdrawal and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbHvsSTRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
The Local Chamber Vienna of the Unified Patent Court found that STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH infringed European Patent EP 2 643 717 B1 owned by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, which relates to a color- and light-mixing collecting optic for outdoor display panels. The court granted injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and removal from distribution channels, as well as a finding of liability for damages, but rejected the plaintiff's request for publication of the decision. The intervener Chainzone Technology was ordered to bear costs jointly with the defendant.
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.