UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 662/2025

Jul 22, 2025·EP3799333 Unitary patentSEP · ALLOCATION OF PREAMBLE SEQUENCES

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Claim dismissed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Mannheim LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Telecommunications
Language
German
First decided
Nov 3, 2025
Last decision
May 29, 2026
EPO Opposition
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Mannheim LDLockedLocked
Judge Peter TochtermannLockedLocked
Judge Tobias SenderLockedLocked
Judge Mojca MlakarLockedLocked
Judge Eric AugardeLockedLocked

At the UPC: Nokia Group (30 cases)·Lotus Group (11 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

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

3 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

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

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Mannheim LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-05-29
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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    • Applicable version of R. 370.9(b) RoP for refund requests filed after 1 January 2026 where the withdrawn action was filed before that date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 ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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
Documents
Show all 742 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-05-29Not public
Decision2026-05-29Not public
Decision2026-05-29Public
Receipt2026-05-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-28Not public
Application document Defendant2026-05-28Not public
Receipt2026-05-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-27Not public
Receipt2026-05-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-27Not public
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA

    Note: 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'

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA

    Note: 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.

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

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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA

    Reason: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
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

Browse other cases on this principle.