UPC CFI 210/2023
31. Juli 2023·EP2568724 SEP · Radio Communication Device and Radio Communication Method
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 545551/2023
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Beklagte
- Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.Unternehmen
- OROPE Germany GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Boukje van der Maazen-Vossius & Brinkhof UPC Litigators
- Andreas Kramer
- Division
- Mannheim LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringTelecommunications · Digital communication
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 14. Feb. 2024
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 6. Feb. 2025
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Mannheim LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Peter Tochtermann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Edger Brinkman | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Dirk Böttcher | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Klaus Loibner | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Panasonic Group (81 Verfahren)·OPPO Group (57 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 9 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 298/2024·CC 596895/2023·UPC CoA 476/2023·ORD 38680/2024·ORD 7452/2024 und 4 weitere
5 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
UPC CoA 543/2024·UPC CFI 332/2024·CC 591342/2023·UPC CFI 219/2023·UPC CFI 331/2024
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Mannheim LD·2023
- 2025-02-06
Zusammenfassung: Procedural order publishing the redacted version of the substantive decision of 22 November 2024 in the infringement action (with FRAND counterclaim and invalidity counterclaim) between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO/OROPE Germany GmbH. The underlying decision (issued 22 November 2024): patent EP 2 568 724 infringed; injunction, recall, disclosure and provisional damages of EUR 250,000 ordered; invalidity counterclaim and FRAND counterclaim dismissed; defendants to bear costs; value in dispute set at over EUR 50 million.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
- Patent infringement (SEP/FRAND context)
- FRAND counterclaim
- Invalidity counterclaim
- Redaction of decision (Rule 262A RoP)
- Provisional damages
- Injunction with security requirement
- 2024-11-22Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division found that Guangdong OPPO and OROPE Germany infringed Panasonic's EP 2 568 724 (radio communication patent), granted injunction, recall and other relief, while dismissing the invalidity counterclaim and the FRAND counterclaim.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Patent infringement
- Invalidity counterclaim
- FRAND/SEP counterclaim
- Injunction and ancillary relief
- 2024-09-16Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division scheduling and structuring the oral hearing in a SEP infringement action. The order confirms hearing dates and provides guidance on the structure of oral submissions, seating arrangements, and confidentiality measures. No substantive ruling on the merits.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Preparation of oral hearing in SEP infringement action
- Hearing schedule and structure
- 2024-07-09
Zusammenfassung: Mannheim Local Division granted an extension of deadlines for the defendants' submissions on FRAND aspects until 14 August 2024, following the conclusion of confidentiality proceedings. The extension was granted as necessary to allow for complete submissions on FRAND-related material, while taking into account that the parties were already familiar with the documents from parallel national proceedings.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Extension of deadlines for FRAND submissions
- Case management after confidentiality order
- 2024-02-14Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division established a confidentiality regime in the Panasonic v. OPPO infringement proceedings for the production of licence agreements and confidential commercial information under Rules 190/191, 262, and 262A RoP, setting out a structured multi-step process to protect trade secrets while enabling their use in the proceedings.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Rules 190/191, 262, 262A RoP: production of documents and confidentiality regime
- Protection of licence agreement terms as trade secrets
- Third-party licence partner consent prior to production
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Case Closure Formal Check | 2025-05-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Case Closure Formal Check | 2025-05-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-02-06 | Nicht öffentlich |
| order 262A | 2025-02-06 | Öffentlich |
| Final redacted version decision 22112024 | 2025-02-06 | Öffentlich |
| rueck | 2025-02-04 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-02-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| rueck | 2025-02-04 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-02-03 | Nicht öffentlich |
| rueck | 2025-02-03 | Öffentlich |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought infringement proceedings against OPPO and OROPE Germany before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 2 568 724, a standard-essential patent for radio communication. The court found infringement and dismissed both the invalidity counterclaim and the FRAND counterclaim, ordering a pan-European injunction, recall and destruction, damages liability running from December 2014, and EUR 250,000 preliminary damages against both defendants jointly. The value in dispute was set at over EUR 50 million.
Infringement of EP 2 568 724 (SEP relating to radio communication) by OPPO and OROPE Germany
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCAHinweis: The Mannheim Local Division found both defendants infringed and ordered pan-European injunction, recall, destruction, damages liability from 2014/2016, and EUR 250,000 preliminary damages.
Infringement of EP 2 568 724 B1 (radio communication patent) by OPPO and OROPE in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCAHinweis: Court accepted infringement, granting injunction, recall, removal and destruction, information disclosure, and damages declaration.
Counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 568 724
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCABegründung: Revocation counterclaim dismissed; patent found valid.
FRAND counterclaim: defendants should not be subject to injunction/damages because Panasonic failed to offer a FRAND licence
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 29 UPCA; FRAND principlesBegründung: The FRAND counterclaim was dismissed; no detail is visible in the redacted excerpt as to the specific reasoning.
Invalidity counterclaim against EP 2 568 724 B1
BeklagterBegründung: Dismissed in full; patent held valid (specific grounds not detailed in available excerpt).
FRAND counterclaim — willingness to take a FRAND license precluding injunction
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: FRAND / SEP licensing principlesBegründung: FRAND counterclaim dismissed; defendants' FRAND defense was rejected on the merits (specific reasoning not visible in the first/last pages excerpt).
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.