Institutions: Mannheim Local Division
- Brussels Local Division
- Central Division
- Duesseldorf Local Division
- Hamburg Local Division
- Helsinki Local Division
- Lisbon Local Division
- Local Division
- Luxembourg Court of Appeal
- Mannheim Local Division
- Milan Central Division
- Milan Local Division
- Munich Central Division
- Munich Local Division
- Nordic-Baltic Regional Division
- Paris Central Division
- Paris Local Division
- President of Court of First Instance
- Regional Division
- The Hague Local Division
- Vienna Local Division
-
LD Mannheim, January 19, 2026, Order regarding confidentiality of FRAND negotiations, UPC_CFI_481/2025
General order was issued stipulating that submissions on details of FRAND negotiations between the parties, even if they are only introduced into the proceedings in future pleadings, are already protected under R. 262A RoP : The information to be protected is confidential information belonging to at least one of the parties, because it relates to…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 13, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_850/2026
Admissibility of late submissions deferred post-hearing; panel to decide: The decision on rejecting the claimant’s allegedly late FRAND submissions, and final admission of the defendant’s reply, is deferred to the panel after the oral hearing. No extension of written procedure; narrow provisional reply allowed (Rule 36 RoP): The court closed the written phase and refused…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Mannheim, December 5, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_414/2024, UPC_CFI_729/2024
Dismissal due to lack of substantiation after contest of facts : Defendants specifically denied that their products’ functionalities in question are incorporated in the source code of the attacked embodiments. Claimant fails to substantiate in more detail, why it is of the opinion, that this is not true or relevant and point to specific facts…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, December 5, 2025, Procedural order re. adjournment of proceedings, UPC_CFI_414/2024
R. 114 RoP is applicable only in exceptional situations where, during the oral hearing, a specific issue or a specific in-depth investigation is identified as necessary and cannot reasonably be completed within the existing hearing slot. : Claimant’s request to reopen the oral hearing and to set a further date for the oral hearing was…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 12, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_338/2024
Direct infringement when supplying set of components: If the patent-protected product is specifically designed to easily assemble its components at the place of use without the addition of further items, the mere offering or supplying of all components already constitutes a direct patent infringement within the meaning of Art. 25(a) UPCA. Direct infringement when supplying…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 16, 2025, order on the production of evidence, UPC_CFI_247/2025
Production of license agreements in FRAND context ordered.: Pursuant to R. 190 RoP and taking into account the stage of the proceedings, the production of license agreements was ordered insofar as the claimant agreed to submit the license agreements specified by it but could not receive the consent of its respective contractual partners to submit…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 12, 2025, Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_481/2025
Key takeaway If the language of proceedings shall be changed and the parties’ interests are weighed, the defendant’s interests shall prevail in the event of equal outcome.: In the event that the weighing of interests of the defendant and the claimant results in a draw, the position of the defendant – having not initiated the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, August 27, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_521/2024
Rejection of submission: The court may, at its discretion, disregard not only unsolicited written submissions in addition to the regular written pleadings provided for in the RoP, but also the content of regular written pleadings that goes beyond the admissible content provided for in the RoP. This applies not only to new arguments or facts,…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, August 4, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_162/2024
Discretionary extension of time periods is interpreted narrowly (Rule 9.3(a) RoP): The court will only grant extensions for procedural deadlines with caution, prioritizing efficient proceedings and avoiding undue delay. Vacation-related absences may justify short extensions, but only if sufficiently substantiated (Rule 9.3(a) RoP): General references to staff absences or international coordination are insufficient; only specific,…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, August 6, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_336/2025
Confidentiality of attorney billing records in cost proceedings (Rule 262A RoP, Art. 58 UPCA): Information about the detailed breakdown of lawyers’ hours worked is considered confidential, as such information is protected by attorney-client privilege. Access restrictions to confidential information cannot be limited to legal representatives alone without consent (Rule 262A.6 RoP): Restricting access to confidential…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 25, 2025, Procedural Order on Enforcement of Saisie Order, UPC_CFI_636/2025
Saisie Order is Limited to Systems and Evidence Physically Available at Designated Premises: The inspection may only cover what is physically present at the premises explicitly named in the court order. A defendant is not obliged to grant access to systems or data stored outside the specified premises, nor to coordinate with personnel or infrastructure…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 29, 2025, Order on Request to Dismiss Infringement Action Due to Lack of Domestic Representative
Domestic Representative under German Patent Act Not Required for UPC Proceedings: The LD Mannheim clarified that Section 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), which requires foreign patentees to appoint a domestic representative for proceedings before German authorities, does not apply to infringement actions before the UPC. The Court emphasized that the UPC is governed…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 23, 2025, order on penalty payments, UPC_CFI_365/2023
Penalties should be proportionate to the value of the dispute and the level of non-compliance: The Court considered the proportionality of the penalties in relation to the value of the dispute (€15,000,000) and the defendants’ actions. The penalty system aims to encourage compliance while allowing for increasing sanctions for continued violations. Neither R. 354.3 or…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 21, 2025, order on harmonization of time periods, UPC_CFI_79/2025
Harmonizing Time Limits in Joint Proceedings: When a counterclaim for revocation (CCR) is filed jointly with a statement of defense, the time limit for responding to the CCR begins only after the claimant receives the substantive content of the CCR. This ensures procedural fairness and alignment between the infringement and revocation proceedings. Division Local Division…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 24, 2025 order on value in dispute in the case of a FRAND counterclaim, UPC_CFI_850/2024
The value in dispute for FRAND counterclaims is not limited to the value in dispute of the infringement action: A FRAND counterclaim expands the subject matter beyond the infringement action, especially if not limited to the patent-in-suit, and its value is determined by the scope of the license sought. Therefore, the introduction of a FRAND…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 18, 2025, order on infringement claims relating to UK, UPC_CFI_359/2023
The UPC does not have jurisdiction to revoke the validated national part of a European Patent in relation to the United Kingdom with erga omnes effect: According to the ECJ’s ruling in BSH Hausgeräte, the court of the Member State of the European Union in which the defendant is domiciled (Article 4(1) Brussels Ia Regulation)…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 18, 2025, order on infringement claims relating to UK, UPC_CFI_365/2023
The UPC has jurisdiction to decide upon the infringement of the UK part of a EuropeanPatent: This applies as far as the infringement action relates to acts infringing the UK national part of the patent-in-suit. Whether infringement is given and an injunction and/or other measures can be granted has to be assessed under UK law.…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.