UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: 31. Juli 2023

UPC_CFI_210/2023

Radio Communication Device and Radio Communication Method

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageMannheim LDInfringementCase Closed
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
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.

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.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
FRAND counterclaim is a substantive defence to SEP infringement proceedings that can be adjudicated by the UPCConfidentiality regime for licence agreements in SEP proceedings: structured multi-step upload/protect process under R.190/191, 262, 262A RoPParties concluding licence agreements with broad confidentiality clauses cannot use those clauses to delay production of licences ordered by the courtDamages liability for SEP infringement may run from the date of predecessor rights assignment, not only from claimant's ownership date

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.