Short Summary
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement dispute involving standard-essential patents (SEPs) for 3G and 4G standards. The plaintiff (Panasonic) alleges infringement of its patent, while the defendants (including OPPO) counter that Panasonic's licensing demands during prior negotiations were not FRAND. Both parties requested the court to order production of evidence, including license agreements, to determine what constitutes FRAND terms in this case.
Detailed Summary
This case involves a patent infringement action filed by Panasonic against multiple defendants, including OPPO (referred to as Beklagte zu 1). The dispute centers on standard-essential patents (SEPs) for 3G and 4G mobile telecommunications standards. Prior to the litigation, the parties had engaged in unsuccessful license negotiations concerning Panasonic's 3G and 4G patent portfolio. The defendants raised the defense that Panasonic's licensing demands during these negotiations were not FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory), and according to the defendants, the question of what constitutes FRAND terms is at the center of the dispute. Both parties maintained that they had acted in a FRAND-compliant manner during the licensing negotiations.
Both the plaintiff and defendants requested the court to order the production of evidence to support their respective positions on the FRAND question. The plaintiff sought to rely on license agreements it had itself concluded. Defendant 1 (OPPO) made extensive requests for the production of documents, seeking: (1) all license agreements concluded by Panasonic covering 3G and/or 4G SEPs relating to mobile devices; (2) all license agreements concluded by third parties covering 3G and/or 4G SEPs that were or are owned by Panasonic and under Panasonic's control; (3) specific license agreements Panasonic concluded with companies referred to as 'X' and 'Y' that Panasonic referenced during negotiations; (4) all license agreements Panasonic concluded with companies referred to as 'M.' and 'Q.' covering 3G and/or 4G SEPs; (5) a complete overview of all transactions in which Panasonic transferred 3G and/or 4G SEPs; (6) all agreements related to such transactions, including supplementary agreements and financial arrangements providing Panasonic with monetary benefits; and (7) a forward-looking obligation requiring Panasonic to disclose any new license agreements concluded during the proceedings within 14 days of signing or after any contractual notice period. OPPO also requested permission to submit its own license agreements with third parties covering 3G and/or 4G SEPs, and sought an order that the evidence need not be translated.
& Analysis: The provided text is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Munich on April 3, 2024, addressing the parties' respective applications for the production of evidence. The full reasoning of the court is not contained in the excerpt provided, as the text appears to be truncated.
Final Order & Ruling: The document is a procedural order concerning the management of evidence in the case, with the court addressing the various requests for production of documents submitted by both the plaintiff and the defendants. The complete ruling and its operative provisions are not fully set out in the provided text excerpt.
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 , Panasonic Holdings Corporation vs OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. 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.