UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 662/2025

22. Juli 2025·EP3799333 EinheitspatentSEP · ALLOCATION OF PREAMBLE SEQUENCES

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Klage abgewiesen)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Mannheim LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Telecommunications
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
3. Nov. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
29. Mai 2026
EPA-Einspruch
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 Tobias SenderGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Mojca MlakarGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Eric AugardeGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Nokia Group (30 Verfahren)·Lotus Group (11 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 1748/2026·UPC CFI 1291/2026·UPC CFI 160/2026

3 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CFI 108/2025·UPC CFI 118/2024·UPC CFI 112/2025

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Mannheim LD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-29
    Counterclaim for revocationÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims: the claimant withdrew the infringement action (UPC_CFI_662/2025) and the defendants withdrew the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_160/2026). Both proceedings were declared terminated with no costs order, and the court ordered partial refund of court fees (50%) to each party pursuant to R. 370.9(b) RoP.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Withdrawal of infringement action under R. 265 RoP
    • Withdrawal of counterclaim for revocation under R. 265 RoP
    • Partial refund of court fees under R. 370.9(b) and R. 370.11 RoP
    • Applicable version of R. 370.9(b) RoP for refund requests filed after 1 January 2026 where the withdrawn action was filed before that date
  • 2025-11-03
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection (R.19 RoP) filed by multiple Geely group defendants challenging the jurisdiction and competence of the Mannheim Local Division. The Court found it had jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA over all defendants as they are members of the same corporate group, share business relations as required, and face the same infringement allegation regarding the same patent claim. The Court also established that the requirement of a 'business relationship' under Art.33(1)(b) UPCA does not require complete identity of infringing acts but merely that the accused acts are aligned in purpose. The infringement action on the merits continues.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Preliminary objection under R.19 RoP
    • Jurisdiction of Local Division under Art.33(1)(b) UPCA
    • Business relationship requirement for multi-defendant suits
    • Competence over non-EU domiciled defendants
Dokumente
Alle 742 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-05-29Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2026-05-29Nicht öffentlich
Decision2026-05-29Öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-28Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-28Nicht öffentlich
Application document Defendant2026-05-28Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Nokia challenged Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and multiple Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart branded entities for infringement of EP 3 799 333 (preamble sequence allocation, telecoms/SEP). The Mannheim Local Division rejected the defendants' preliminary objection challenging jurisdiction, holding that each brand group's EU-based subsidiaries share a sufficient business relationship under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA, and that aligned parallel sales activities under the same patent allegation satisfy the 'same infringement' requirement without requiring complete identity of acts.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • UPC jurisdiction over all Geely group defendants under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA based on business relationship and same infringement allegation

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA

    Hinweis: Court found that corporate group members selling the same branded vehicles share a 'business relationship' within the meaning of Art. 33(1)(b) and face the same infringement allegation even if their individual acts differ in form.

  • Complete identity of infringing acts is not required; parallel and aligned distribution activities suffice for 'same infringement allegation'

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA

    Hinweis: Court held that the infringement allegation need only be 'aligned in purpose' (gleichgerichtet) rather than identical; selling the same branded product in different EU countries satisfies this requirement.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over non-EU defendants (Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd.)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA

    Begründung: Court confirmed that non-EU domiciled parent companies cannot alone anchor jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b); jurisdiction was established via the EU-domiciled subsidiaries in Germany.

  • Business relationship under Art. 33(1)(b) requires direct commercial ties between all defendants across different brand groups within the Geely conglomerate

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA

    Begründung: Court held it was sufficient that each brand group's subsidiaries had the required relationship among themselves; cross-brand-group relationships need not be established for a single consolidated action to be competent.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Business relationship under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA: membership in the same corporate group with aligned commercial activities (R&D, manufacturing, sales of the same products) is sufficientSame infringement allegation does not require complete identity of infringing acts; aligned/parallel acts directed at the same objective sufficeNon-EU-domiciled parent companies do not independently ground jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b); jurisdiction flows from EU-domiciled subsidiariesJurisdictional assessment at the preliminary stage uses a 'cursory look' standard without pre-judging the merits

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.