Executive Summary
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed requests from Samsung (Defendants) to introduce new evidence and pleadings related to ongoing license negotiations and third-party agreements. The Court dismissed the broad requests for further written submissions and production orders, citing concerns over 'ping-pong' effects and the timing of the evidence. However, recognizing the dynamic nature of FRAND licensing, the Court granted a limited window for parties to submit briefs on new developments before the oral hearing, ensuring that all relevant facts can be considered during the merits phase.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court rejected the Defendants' attempts to introduce extensive new material into the proceedings via R. 36 RoP and obtain production orders for their own third-party license agreements at this stage. However, it allowed a limited submission window (until March 3, 2026) specifically for developments in ongoing license negotiations, deferring decisions on FRAND counterclaim adjustments until after the oral hearing.
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 ZTE Corporation vs Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
In this procedural order, the UPC dismissed a request by multiple defendants for security for legal costs against the US-based claimant. The Court emphasized that while protecting defendants is important, it cannot unduly restrict a claimant's right to an effective remedy. The ruling clarified that the mere fact of being non-EU based is insufficient grounds for imposing security if the claimant demonstrates financial capacity and willingness to cover adverse costs.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbHvsZentiva Portugal, LDA.
In a significant decision regarding generic drug competition, the UPC Court of Appeal granted provisional measures in favor of Boehringer Ingelheim against Zentiva. The court held that the completion of national health technology assessments and reimbursement procedures for generics can constitute an imminent infringement threat, even before market launch. This ruling reinforces the proactive nature of the UPC's jurisdiction across all member states, providing a strong deterrent against premature generic entry.
Microsoft CorporationvsSuinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural order, the UPC granted Microsoft Corporation's request to keep detailed legal invoices and billing information confidential during infringement proceedings against Suinno Mobile. The court found that this data, which details hours spent and fees paid, constitutes highly sensitive business information revealing corporate strategy and financial commitment. While granting confidentiality access only to specific counsel, the Court declined to impose a fixed penalty for non-compliance.
Lindal Dispenser GmbHvsRocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Lindal Dispenser GmbH against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning patent EP 3 655 346. Both parties agreed to close the proceedings, and the court granted the request for reimbursement of court fees. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties reach a mutual agreement to terminate litigation.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.vsAbbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal concerning provisional measures related to a CGM patent. The court confirmed its jurisdiction based on the likelihood of damage arising from products intended for UPC Member States. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, and the Appellants were ordered to pay €200,000 in interim costs to the Respondent. This case reinforces the broad jurisdictional reach of the UPC when infringing goods are marketed within the territory.
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.