Executive Summary
In this UPC infringement case, Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought to proceed against Xiaomi and its affiliates regarding EP3024163. The defendants requested a suspension of the proceedings pending a final decision from the UK High Court on FRAND licensing terms. The rapporteur determined that this complex issue required a full panel ruling. Consequently, the matter was referred to the panel for decision during or after the scheduled oral hearings.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court recognized that handling the request for suspension in the context of a parallel FRAND determination requires a decision by the full panel. Due to procedural economy, the rapporteur proposed deferring this decision until the already scheduled oral hearings (November 2024 and January 2025).
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 Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SES-imagotag SAvsHanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the determination of costs for an appeal stage. The claimant, SES-imagotag SA, opposed the request from Hanshow entities to recover substantial appeal costs (€131,874.80). The court ultimately rejected the cost claim because the respondents missed the strict one-month deadline for filing the costs application under Rule 151 EPGVerfO. Their subsequent attempts to cure this procedural defect were deemed invalid due to improper filing and failure to pay required fees.
Jingao Solar Co., Ltd.vsChint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect and expedition filed by Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. against Jingao Solar Co., Ltd. The appeal concerned a security for costs order issued by the Court of First Instance in the main infringement/revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 787 541. The Court ultimately rejected Chint's request, upholding the original timeline and requiring Chint to provide the stipulated security.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonvsASUSTeK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the protection of confidential information in patent litigation, specifically concerning Standard Essential Patent (SEP) licensing agreements. The court established a tailored confidentiality regime that balances the need for secrecy with the parties' right to a fair trial. A key takeaway is the nuanced approach to access rights, recognizing the necessity of employee involvement while mitigating potential harm through specific contractual restrictions on negotiations.
Eyesmatch LtdvsMicrosoft Corp.
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing an infringement action when parties reach a settlement outside of court. Eyesmatch Ltd withdrew its claim against Microsoft Corp., and the Court formally closed the proceedings. The ruling highlights that mutual agreement between parties can supersede standard cost determination procedures, provided all necessary declarations are made.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V.vsInverquark Deutschland GmbH
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. sought provisional measures to inspect and preserve evidence related to the 'InverJet' product manufactured by Inverquark Deutschland GmbH, alleging patent infringement of EP 3 653 275 B8 (Counter-Current Swimming Device). The court examined the request for inspection at a trade fair booth but ultimately dismissed the application. This decision highlights the stringent procedural requirements under the UPC for obtaining evidence preservation measures prior to filing main infringement proceedings.
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.