UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

ACT_545551/2023

Radio Communication Device and Radio Communication Method

InfringementMain Infringement ActionMannheim LDInfringement Action—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Thin.Reasoning extracted with limited coverage — see decisions tab for full text.
Plain-English summary

Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and its German subsidiary OROPE Germany before the Mannheim Local Division for infringement of EP 2 568 724 B1, a standard-essential patent relating to radio communication devices. The court found infringement, granted injunction and ancillary relief, and dismissed both OPPO's invalidity counterclaim and its FRAND counterclaim. The decision is issued in German and concerns the standard proceedings structure of a SEP case at the UPC.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Infringement of EP 2 568 724 B1 (radio communication patent) by OPPO and OROPE in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

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

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Invalidity counterclaim against EP 2 568 724 B1

    Respondent

    Reason: Dismissed in full; patent held valid (specific grounds not detailed in available excerpt).

  • FRAND counterclaim — willingness to take a FRAND license precluding injunction

    RespondentLegal basis: FRAND / SEP licensing principles

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

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
FRANDSEP infringement — injunction not automatically barred by FRAND commitment where defendant's counterclaim fails on the merits

Browse other cases on this principle.