Executive Summary
This UPC decision addresses the scope of fee refunds when patent litigation is withdrawn. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought a 60% refund of court costs after settling its infringement case against OPPO and OROPE, arguing the complexity warranted an 'exceptional' status under Rule 370.9(e). However, the Local Division upheld the initial ruling, limiting the refund to 40%. The judgment emphasizes that while complex cases generate high workloads, this factor alone is insufficient to override the general principle of proportional fee recovery based on the stage of proceedings.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court confirmed that even if a patent infringement case is complex and involves an exceptionally high workload for the court, this does not automatically qualify it as an 'exceptional case' under Rule 370.9(e) EPGVerfO to warrant a higher fee refund upon withdrawal.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Panasonic Holdings Corporation vs Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Promosome LLCvsBioNTech SE et al.
In this UPC case, Promosome LLC sought to compel BioNTech and its affiliates to produce detailed raw data and experimental methods used in an expert report related to patent infringement. The Defendants argued that access to this data was necessary for them to properly defend against the infringement claims. However, the Court rejected the request, emphasizing that the defendants failed to specify concrete facts or evidence they wished to contest. This decision reinforces the high threshold required for a Rule 190 request, even when made by a defendant.
Dolby International ABvsRoku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. Roku argued that the UPC's jurisdiction violated fundamental EU rights and challenged the court's organizational structure. The Court firmly dismissed these arguments, clarifying that jurisdictional objections must adhere to specific grounds under the Rules of Procedure. The ruling also affirmed the Administrative Committee's authority to adapt the UPC's structure as necessary.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna et al
In this procedural order, the UPC CFI addressed applications regarding claim amendments and late-filed evidence in a high-stakes biotech dispute between GSK and Moderna. The court granted GSK's request to amend its claims to cover new vaccine variants like mNEXSPIKE, recognizing the evolving nature of the technology. Simultaneously, the court rejected Moderna’s attempt to exclude crucial supporting arguments and exhibits from the proceedings, affirming the claimant's right to respond fully to the defense.
Lindal Dispenser GmbHvsRocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH initiated a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning European Patent EP 3 655 346 B1, which covers a specialized pressure pack dispenser. Lindal argued the patent lacked industrial application and novelty. The UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action, maintaining the patent as amended by the defendant's auxiliary request. This decision underscores the procedural complexities of UPC litigation, particularly regarding the interplay between invalidity arguments and amendments.
ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.vsGC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED et al.
In this preliminary objection case, Establishment Labs S.A. sued GC Aesthetics Group and its affiliates for infringing EP 3 107 487 B1 related to the Perle implant across multiple jurisdictions, including non-UPC states like Ireland and the UK. The Defendants challenged the UPC's jurisdiction over these national designations. The Local Division of Brussels dismissed the objection, affirming that the UPC possesses international jurisdiction over all parts of a European patent when one defendant is properly sued. This ruling clears the path for the merits phase to determine infringement across all claimed territories.
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.