UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 210/2023

31. Juli 2023·EP2568724 SEP · Radio Communication Device and Radio Communication Method

Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 545551/2023

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Mannheim LD
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Telecommunications · Digital communication
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
14. Feb. 2024
Letzte Entscheidung
6. Feb. 2025
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Mannheim LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Peter TochtermannGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Edger BrinkmanGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Dirk BöttcherGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Klaus LoibnerGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Panasonic Group (81 Verfahren)·OPPO Group (57 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 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
  • 2024-11-22
    Infringement 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
  • 2024-09-16
    Infringement 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
  • 2024-02-14
    Infringement 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
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Case Closure Formal Check2025-05-02Nicht öffentlich
Case Closure Formal Check2025-05-02Nicht öffentlich
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-02-06Nicht öffentlich
order 262A2025-02-06Öffentlich
Final redacted version decision 221120242025-02-06Öffentlich
rueck2025-02-04Öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-02-04Nicht öffentlich
rueck2025-02-04Öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-02-03Nicht öffentlich
rueck2025-02-03Öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

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.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • Infringement of EP 2 568 724 (SEP relating to radio communication) by OPPO and OROPE Germany

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA

    Hinweis: 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 UPCA

    Hinweis: Court accepted infringement, granting injunction, recall, removal and destruction, information disclosure, and damages declaration.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • Counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 568 724

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA

    Begründung: 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 principles

    Begründung: 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

    Beklagter

    Begründung: 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 principles

    Begründung: FRAND counterclaim dismissed; defendants' FRAND defense was rejected on the merits (specific reasoning not visible in the first/last pages excerpt).