Executive Summary
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addressed a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to allow further written pleadings in an infringement action against Texas Instruments. The Claimant argued that new and complex technical points raised by the Defendants required additional time for submission. However, the UPC Panel dismissed this review application, emphasizing strict formal requirements for procedural requests under R. 36 RoP. This decision reinforces the court's adherence to established case law regarding the necessary level of substantiation in managing litigation timelines.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court confirmed that a request under R. 36, 12.5 RoP requires a sufficient degree of formal substantiation so that the judge-rapporteur can grasp the essential facts without extensive file review. The panel upheld the initial dismissal because the Claimant's submission lacked this required level of detail and substance.
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 TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC vs Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
NanoString Technologies Inc.vs10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the critical interplay between preliminary injunctions, their subsequent revocation, and the enforceability of associated penalty orders (Zwangsgelder). The court established that because initial injunctions are generally retroactive, overturning them eliminates the legal foundation for any coercive fine order. This ruling provides significant clarity on risk management for patentees relying on provisional measures in UPC proceedings.
ArcelorMittalvsXPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Sweden) AB, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS (Danemark) ApS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE LUXEMBOURG S.A., XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl and HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA
ArcelorMittal initiated an infringement action against numerous XPENG-related entities concerning a patent covering coated steel strips and stamped products. However, the claimant subsequently filed an application to withdraw the suit, citing a settlement reached with the defendants. The UPC Court granted the withdrawal request, formally closing the proceedings. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to exit litigation early when settlements are reached.
Fujifilm CorporationvsKodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Kodak against a judgment issued by the Court of First Instance in an infringement case brought by Fujifilm. The court ruled that the appeal did not have suspensive effect, rejecting Kodak's request to halt the enforcement of the initial judgment. The ruling emphasized that while appeals can be challenged, the appellant must demonstrate manifest errors in the lower court's decision, which Kodak failed to do.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.vsYunex GmbH
In this UPC procedural order, the court allowed Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. to join the ongoing infringement action as an assisting party (Streithilfe). This move is significant as it allows a third party to participate in supporting or challenging the claims between Swarco Futurit and Yunex GmbH. The decision primarily addresses procedural matters, including requests for cost security deposits, keeping the core patent dispute active but with expanded participation.
N.J DIFFUSION SARLvsGISELA MAYER GmbH
This procedural order in the Paris Local Division addressed Gisela Mayer's request for N.J Diffusion to provide a €50,000 guarantee due to N.J Diffusion's insolvency proceedings. The Panel ultimately dismissed this guarantee request, citing French collective procedure law which prioritizes the principle of equality among creditors. Crucially, the underlying infringement action was confirmed to continue despite the debtor's financial difficulties.
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.