Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Mannheim Local Division » LD Mannheim, May 16, 2024, order re. producing license agreements, UPC_CFI_216/2023

LD Mannheim, May 16, 2024, order re. producing license agreements, UPC_CFI_216/2023

3 min Reading time

Key takeaways

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.

If the defendant requests the provision of license agreements with its own suppliers, the defendant must address its own suppliers first


LC Mannheim

UPC number


Type of proceedings

Application re producing license agreements


Panasonic Holdings Corporation

OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.


EP 3096315

Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 190 RoP

Was the article helpful?



Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field