Key takeaways
The order to produce license agreements could be inappropriate if the alleged infringer was unwilling to take a license from the beginning
Scope of the order to produce license agreements in view of the SEP holder’s duty of transparency established by the ECJ
In the present case, the claimant already submitted few comparable license agreements. The defendant has not presented any evidence and it is also otherwise not evident that the claimant has further comparable – even more suitable – license agreements which the parties could use in their negotiations to conclude a FRAND license agreement. Based on it, the LD Mannheim rejected the application to produce other license agreements in the present case.
Further, it is primarily the claimant’s decision whether and if so, which and how many comparable license agreements it submits in the proceedings to counter a possible FRAND defence. Procedural consequences may only be applied if the claimant did not submit its agreements in the negotiations or in the proceedings in order to take an advantage of its monopoly position to enforce excessive licenses.
There are also substantive concerns against the order to produce all comparable agreements. The court (contrary to the claimant) does not know which agreeements are to be considered comparable. Such an order seems to be insufficiently enforceable.
Agreements with suppliers of defendants
If the defendant requests the provision of license agreements with its own suppliers, the defendant must address its own suppliers first
Division
LC Mannheim
UPC number
UPC_CFI_216/2023
Type of proceedings
Application re producing license agreements
Parties
Panasonic Holdings Corporation
OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Patent(s)
EP 3096315
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 190 RoP