| 2025-09-15 | UPC_APP_20197/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Mannheim Local Division on a review (Rule 333 RoP) of a judge-rapporteur order requiring Total Semiconductor, LLC to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP in an infringement action against Texas Instruments. The full panel reviewed whether the security order was justified, considering the claimant's status as a recently incorporated US-based special purpose entity funded by third-party investors with no operative business. |
| 2025-09-05 | UPC_APP_34668/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division denied Keysight Technologies' application to stay infringement proceedings pending EPO opposition proceedings against EP 3 821 580, finding that a non-binding preliminary EPO opinion and the advanced state of UPC proceedings did not justify a stay. |
| 2025-08-20 | UPC_APP_34743/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division (full panel) rejected Centripetal Limited's request for a further written pleading after defendants' rejoinder, confirming the judge-rapporteur's order that admitting a new infringement reading would necessitate an additional defendant brief incompatible with the scheduled oral hearing timetable. |
| 2025-08-08 | UPC_APP_28086/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Panel review under Rule 333 RoP of a judge-rapporteur order (App_22065/2025) that had dismissed a defendant's application to admit a new novelty attack based on new prior art (EP 3 868 480) into the counterclaim for revocation. The order concerned whether leave to amend the counterclaim should be granted under Rule 263 RoP. |
| 2025-08-01 | UPC_APP_33206/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | Mannheim Local Division dismissed Centripetal Limited's request under R. 36 RoP for permission to file an additional written pleading introducing a new infringement reading in proceedings against Keysight Technologies entities (EP 3 821 580). The court held: (1) introducing a new infringement reading at this stage would require a further brief from defendants and could not be prepared before the October 2025 oral hearing; (2) defendants' rejoinder was a proper reaction to claimant's new reading in the Reply, not new independent arguments; (3) the front-loaded UPC procedure does not allow new infringement readings to be added progressively; (4) claimant had known about the disputed functionality from 2023 ITC proceedings. |
| 2025-07-29 | UPC_APP_31764/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 362 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Mannheim Local Division in Malikie Innovations v Discord rejecting the defendants' request under R. 361/362 RoP that the claimant be required to appoint a domestic representative for the German national part of EP 3 716 655 pursuant to s. 25(1) German Patent Act. The court held that the UPC regime under Art. 83(1) UPCA does not require compliance with the German domestic representative requirement. |
| 2025-07-18 | UPC_APP_24543/2025 | Mannheim LD | Hearing | Procedural | Not infringed | Decision of the Mannheim Local Division dismissing FUJIFILM Corporation's infringement action against Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH for the UK-validated part of EP 3 476 616. The Court found that the UPC has jurisdiction over the UK part of a European bundle patent and can assess validity as a prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect, but that the infringement action failed on the merits (invalidity defence succeeded). The claimant bears litigation costs. |
| 2025-07-17 | UPC_APP_28969/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order in enforcement proceedings following a main infringement decision of 2 April 2025. Defendants applied under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection over information to be rendered in the enforcement proceedings. The court ruled on multiple interrelated applications, directing parties to coordinate enforcement-related procedural submissions. |
| 2025-07-16 | UPC_APP_29027/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Dismissed | FUJIFILM Corporation's request for review of the judge-rapporteur's order rejecting its intended enforcement warning (penalty application under R. 354.4 RoP) was rejected. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's reasoning: no specific time periods or penalty amounts were fixed in the main decision for the destruction/recall/removal orders, and claimant should have challenged those points on appeal rather than via panel review. |
| 2025-06-03 | UPC_APP_20512/2025 | Mannheim LD | Notice of intention to enforce (RoP118.8) | Enforcement | Procedural only | Order from the Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_365/2023) on Fujifilm's notification of intention to enforce judgment (R. 118.8 RoP). Following a judgment of 2 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 511 174 by Kodak entities and ordering information disclosure, Fujifilm sought a warning that Kodak would face penalty payments of up to EUR 30,000 per day of non-compliance. The Court noted its prior decision reserving flexibility on penalties and addressed the enforcement procedure. |
| 2025-05-28 | UPC_APP_25220/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Mannheim Local Division accepted the withdrawal of the infringement action by MED-EL against Advanced Bionics following a settlement between the parties. The proceedings were declared closed; court fees were not refunded as exceptional circumstances under R.370.9(e) RoP applied. |
| 2025-05-22 | UPC_APP_18490/2025 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Mannheim, on a R.333 RoP panel review, dismissed Total Semiconductor's request for a further written pleading (R.12.5, R.36 RoP), upholding the judge-rapporteur's earlier order because the claimant had failed to substantiate with sufficient particularity why an additional brief was necessary. |
| 2025-05-14 | UPC_APP_15688/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_414/2024) on Keysight's request to be heard on whether Centripetal's newly submitted arguments regarding 'Threat Simulator' and 'ThreatARMOR' constituted new attacked embodiments requiring leave to amend the case under R. 263 RoP. The Court deferred the final decision on leave to the full panel. |
| 2025-04-02 | ORD_15984/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order separating proceedings with respect to the UK national part of EP 3 476 616 in the Fujifilm v. Kodak infringement action, pending the ECJ's ruling in case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) on jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation. |
| 2025-02-03 | UPC_APP_67924/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | Mannheim Local Division order confirming the withdrawal by consent of Panasonic Holdings Corporation's infringement action and the joint counterclaim for revocation filed by Xiaomi group entities and Odiporo GmbH / Shamrock Mobile GmbH concerning multiple patents (standard-essential patents in the mobile technology field), following an out-of-court settlement between the parties. The proceedings were declared closed in their entirety. Each party bears its own costs. The court also addressed court fee reimbursement: Panasonic must pay an additional EUR 13,400 in court fees (due to increased case value of EUR 8,000,000); defendants receive 20% reimbursement of their counterclaim fees (EUR 4,000). The case value was set at EUR 8,000,000. |
| 2025-01-30 | UPC_APP_3424/2025 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order by Mannheim Local Division in FUJIFILM v Kodak (EP 3 511 174) granting FUJIFILM's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese at the oral hearing under R. 109.1 RoP, in order to enable the claimant's Japanese-speaking representatives to effectively participate in the proceedings and exercise their procedural rights. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_APP_52033/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Evidence | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division rejected Panasonic's application to hear its party expert as a witness at the oral hearing in FRAND/infringement proceedings, finding the application was submitted after close of the interim proceedings and no sufficient grounds existed. |
| 2024-09-10 | UPC_APP_45837/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued an order on panel review under Rule 333 RoP of a time extension granted by the judge-rapporteur in the Panasonic v. Xiaomi parallel infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 568 724 and EP 2 207 270. |
| 2024-09-03 | UPC_APP_49142/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division order (presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Tochtermann) on Xiaomi entities' confidentiality protection application (R. 262A RoP) seeking elevated access restrictions on two of three third-party licence agreements submitted as exhibits in infringement proceedings by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi entities concerning EP 2 568 724. The order grants a confidentiality regime consistent with existing protections established in the case but does not grant the additional restrictions requested by Xiaomi for two of the three licence agreements. Alternative requests (to exclude the documents or treat them as not filed) were also addressed. |
| 2024-07-22 | UPC_APP_40530/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Order by Mannheim Local Division panel (UPC_CFI_471/2023, 22 July 2024) on AYLO defendants' R. 333 RoP review application against the judge-rapporteur's confidentiality order. The panel upheld the access restrictions to technical information in the defendants' statement of defence, rejecting the claimants' request to exclude three of their designated persons from access. |
| 2024-07-09 | UPC_APP_32695/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | The Local Division Mannheim issued a final confidentiality order under R.262A RoP protecting Panasonic's licence agreement details from disclosure to OPPO/OROPE in infringement proceedings, addressing disputes over the scope of the confidentiality club, cross-use of information in parallel proceedings, and the number of permitted in-house access persons. |
| 2024-07-09 | UPC_APP_32695/2024 | Mannheim LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Mannheim Local Division on an application for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation regarding license agreement information in the infringement proceedings against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The order sets the scope of the confidentiality regime, including access permissions for external counsel in parallel UK proceedings. |
| 2024-06-27 | ORD_38680/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued case management guidance in Panasonic v. OPPO covering claim construction requirements, amendment applications, and the admissibility of the FRAND declaratory relief counterclaim, including on late patent amendment applications. |
| 2024-06-13 | UPC_APP_35009/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Mannheim Local Division granting time extensions for Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH and Shamrock Mobile GmbH in parallel infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 568 724 (Panasonic v Xiaomi). The extensions were granted due to the confidentiality regime established for FRAND-related submissions by the claimant. |
| 2024-05-16 | UPC_APP_4931/2024 | Mannheim LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order on OPPO's application for document disclosure under R. 190 RoP in SEP/FRAND infringement proceedings, addressing the production of Panasonic's licence agreements relevant to assessing FRAND compliance. |
| 2024-05-06 | ORD_25608/2024 | Mannheim LD | Rule 264 Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Order by Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_223/2023, 6 May 2024) severing the proceedings against Xiaomi defendants 1, 2, 7 and 8 (Chinese/Hong Kong entities awaiting service under the Hague Convention) from the proceedings against defendants 3-6, 9 and 10 (already served European entities). Service on the overseas defendants was expected to take considerable time, necessitating severance. |
| 2024-05-06 | ORD_25614/2024 | Mannheim LD | Rule 264 Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division order (presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Dr. Tochtermann) separating proceedings against unserved Chinese Xiaomi defendants (Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, and Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.) from the served Xiaomi entities and distributors in infringement proceedings by Panasonic Holdings Corporation concerning EP 2 568 724. The separation was ordered under R. 303.2 RoP because the representatives of the served defendants were not instructed by the Chinese entities. No substantive ruling. |
| 2024-05-06 | ORD_25617/2024 | Mannheim LD | Rule 264 Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order separating the infringement proceedings against Xiaomi defendants 1, 2, 7 and 8 (Chinese/HK entities to whom the statement of claim had not yet been served) from the proceedings against the other defendants (3–6, 9, 10) in Panasonic v Xiaomi (UPC_CFI_218/2023, EP 3 096 315). The separation under R. 303.2 RoP was ordered because the European defendants' representatives had not been mandated by the Chinese/HK defendants, and no service authorisation for the Chinese entities via the European affiliates existed. |
| 2024-05-03 | UPC_APP_2352/2024 | Munich LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in SEP/FRAND infringement proceedings between Panasonic and OPPO/OROPE, addressing applications for disclosure of licence agreements under R. 190 RoP as evidence relevant to whether Panasonic's licensing terms were FRAND-compliant. |
| 2024-02-22 | ORD_7452/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Mannheim Local Division exercising discretion under Rule 37.2 RoP (Article 33(3) UPCA) to hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (including a FRAND licence counterclaim) together in the same proceedings. The panel decided that joint hearing of the infringement and invalidity claims is efficient and substantively advantageous. |
| 2024-02-22 | ORD_7585/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Mannheim Local Division order in Panasonic vs Xiaomi infringement proceedings (EP 2 207 270) addressing case management under R. 37.2 RoP read with Art. 33(3) UPCA. The order concerns procedural organisation of the case involving multiple Xiaomi entities and related proceedings. |