Übersicht · Eingereicht: —
APL_32347/2024
Radio Communication Device and Radio Communication Method
BerufungenHauptberufungCourt of AppealAppeal RoP220.1—
Parteien
Kläger
- Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.(OPPO Group)(Xiaomi Group)
- OROPE Germany GmbH(OPPO Group)(Xiaomi Group)
Vertreter: Rien Broekstra (Vossius & Brinkhof UPC Litigators); Andreas Kramer (Vossius & Brinkhof UPC Litigators); Hannes Obex (Vossius & Brinkhof UPC Litigators); Boukje van der Maazen (Vossius & Brinkhof UPC Litigators); Maarten Groeneveld (Vossius & Brinkhof UPC Litigators)
Beklagte
- Panasonic Holdings Corporation(Panasonic Group)
Vertreter: Christof Augenstein (Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte); Benedikt Walesch (Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte); Marco Berlage (Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte)
Richter
- Rian KaldenPresiding judge
- Ingeborg SimonssonLegally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur
- Patricia RombachLegally qualified judge
Patente
- EP2568724SEP · LTE
- EP2207270SEP · LTE
- EP3096315SEP · LTE
- EP 2 568 724SEP · LTE
- EP 2 207 270SEP · LTE
- EP 3 096 315SEP · LTE
CPC-Codes: H04W84/042, H04J11/0023, H04L5/0051, H04L5/0057, H04W72/23, H04W72/542, H04W72/0453, H04L5/0062, H04L5/005, H04L27/2662, H04L27/2657, H04L5/001…
Sektor: Telecommunications
Ausgang
Abgewiesen
Eingereicht: —
Erste Entscheidung: 24. Sept. 2024
Sprache: —
Court of Appeal dismissed OPPO and OROPE's appeal against orders denying their requests for production of evidence (R.190 RoP) in FRAND proceedings. The Court held that the CFI acted within its margin of discretion in finding that production of Panasonic's settlement licence agreements did not meet criteria of necessity, relevance and proportionality at the current stage of proceedings.