UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht:

UPC_APP_516/2025

RADIO COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND RESPONSE SIGNAL SPREADING METHOD

Prozessuale & UnteranträgeVerfahrensführungsanordnungenMunich LDApplication Rop 333Vergleich erfolgt: Vor Hauptsache
Parteien

Kläger

Vertreter: Miriam Kiefer (Kather Augenstein)

Beklagte

Vertreter: Tobias J. Hessel
Richter
  • Matthias ZigannPresiding judge
  • András KupeczLegally qualified judge
  • Tobias PichlmaierLegally qualified judge
  • Rydman (first Name Not Stated)Technically qualified judge
Patente
  • EP2197132SEP · LTE
CPC-Codes: H04L5/0073, H04B1/7143, H04B1/713, H04J13/0074, H04J11/005, H04L5/0055, H04J13/0059, H04W88/08, H04L5/0057, H04W72/21, H04W72/23

Sektor: Telecommunications

Ausgang
Vergleich
Eingereicht:
Erste Entscheidung: 25. Feb. 2025
Sprache:
Vergleich erfolgt: Vor Hauptsachesettled commercially

Munich Local Division order reviewing (under R. 333 RoP) an earlier order that granted only 40% court fee reimbursement following the parties' settlement and mutual withdrawal of infringement action and revocation counterclaims. The parties had agreed on settlement in late 2024 after intensive proceedings in a complex SEP case (OPPO vs Panasonic re EP 2 197 132). The claimant challenged the 40% reimbursement, arguing that 60% should apply, contending the case qualified as exceptional under R. 370.9(e) RoP given the extraordinary amount of work the court had performed (far above average). The order addresses what constitutes an 'exceptional case' permitting reduction of the standard fee refund schedule.