UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Jul 31, 2023

UPC_CFI_210/2023

Radio Communication Device and Radio Communication Method

InfringementMain Infringement ActionMannheim LDInfringementCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Infringement of EP 2 568 724 (SEP relating to radio communication) by OPPO and OROPE Germany

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: 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.

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

  • Counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 568 724

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Reason: Revocation counterclaim dismissed; patent found valid.

  • FRAND counterclaim: defendants should not be subject to injunction/damages because Panasonic failed to offer a FRAND licence

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 29 UPCA; FRAND principles

    Reason: The FRAND counterclaim was dismissed; no detail is visible in the redacted excerpt as to the specific reasoning.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
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

Browse other cases on this principle.