Decisions
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-05 | UPC_CFI_666/2024 | The Hague LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Settled | The Hague Local Division declared the proceedings closed in both the infringement claim (Adeia v. Walt Disney) and the counterclaim for revocation, following the parties' mutual withdrawal of their actions under R.265.1 RoP after reaching a settlement. The court reimbursed 40% of the court fees paid, corresponding to the stage of proceedings at time of withdrawal (after interim procedure but before oral procedure). The settlement terms were not disclosed. |
| 2025-11-03 | UPC_CFI_666/2024 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Hague Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in Adeia Guides v. Walt Disney entities (EP 1 969 839, electronic programme guide patent), setting out decisions on scheduling and procedural steps following the interim conference. |
| 2025-03-13 | UPC_CFI_665/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division issued a scheduling order in the Adeia Guides v Walt Disney Company patent infringement proceedings (EP 2 793 430), setting dates for interim conference and oral hearing, and proceeding with both infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. |
| 2025-02-04 | UPC_CFI_218/2023 | Mannheim LD | Application Rop 265 | — | Settled | The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order confirming that Panasonic Holdings Corporation (claimant) and the Xiaomi entities and related defendants had reached a settlement, resulting in the mutual withdrawal of both the infringement action and the defendants' joint counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 069 315. Costs were settled by agreement between the parties; no court cost decision was required. |
| 2024-04-30 | UPC_CFI_218/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Mannheim Local Division issued an order in Panasonic Holdings Corporation's infringement action against Xiaomi entities concerning EP 3 096 315, ruling on a production of licence agreements application (R. 190 RoP). The court ordered disclosure of certain licence agreements (with redactions permitted for irrelevant passages) where the parties holding those agreements had not provided valid reasons to refuse consent to production. |