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, April 9, 2025, request to separate proceedings, UPC_CFI_819/2024
No separation of proceedings to avoid potential conflicts with EU competition law: Where several defendants belong to different competing groups of companies, potential conflicts with EU competition law may arise from the submission of sensitive confidential information about a company’s business in the proceedings. If these conflicts arise solely from the fact that the defendants…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 4, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_750/2024
Questions of fact and law relevant to jurisdiction and to the merits of the case are not dealt with in the preliminary objection procedure according to R. 19.1 RoP: Questions of fact and law that are relevant both to jurisdiction of the UPCA and to the merits of the case are, in principle, not to…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Mannheim, April 2, 2025, order on Preliminary Objection, UPC_CFI_819/2024
Multiple Defendants may be sued in one action provided that the infringement has occured in the CMS hosting the Local Division, irrespective of a “commercial relationship”: Claimant submitted in its Statement of claim sufficient facts, which establish competence of the Local Division Mannheim for each and every defendant under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, which is reinforced by…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 1, 2025, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_132/2024
UPC sets strict limitations on requests for filing further briefs: The UPC emphasizes procedural efficiency and limits deviations from the standard briefing schedule outlined in Rule 12 RoP. Requests for further briefs must be explicitly justified and supported by specific evidence, outlining the necessity for exceeding the standard two mandatory and two optional briefs. Request…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, March 27, 2025, request for information, UPC_CFI_471/2023
Request to determine that information is not relevant to the decision is inadmissible: The Court found that an application to declare requested information is not relevant to the decision is inadmissible. The decisiveness of the requested information can only be determined after oral proceedings, assessment of the patent’s validity and the sufficiency of the arguments…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, March 26, 2025, file inspection, UPC_CFI_210/2023
File inspection granted to a limited extent: The applicant’s request for file inspection (applicant: a partnership of lawyers under German law specializing in intellectual property law invoking a general interest in information in order to gain a better understanding and knowledge of proceedings before the UPC) is granted to a limited extent in accordance of…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, March 11, 2025, orders, UPC_CFI_159/2024, UPC_CFI_162/2024
If infringement proceedings are ready for decision with regard to single national parts, decision should not be withheld if this would delay enforcement: This decision has gained relevance in light of the recent decisions on the long-arm jurisdiction (cf. CJEU, BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22); UPC LD Dusseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CFI_355/2023) according to which the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, March 11, 2025, decisions, UPC_CFI_159/2024, UPC_CFI_162/2024
Infringement of traditional European patents (“bundle patents”): The applicable substantive law depends on whether the act was committed after the entry into force of the UPCA on June 1, 2023 (then UPCA), before (then national laws), or is “ongoing” (then generally UPCA with exceptions).: If the assertedly infringing act was committed after the entry into…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 31, 2025, Decision of first instance (Infringement Proceedings and Counterclaim for Revocation), UPC_CFI_340/2023
In view of the lack of patentability, the admissible infringement action is unfounded without the need for a judicial review of the infringement allegation required.: After the court has dealt with the interpretation of the patent-in-suit and established the invalidity of the patent-in-suit, it dismissed the infringement action without further ado. Both the examination of…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 22, 2025, procedural order in infringement action, UPC_CFI_365/2023
Document submission one week before the hearing: The hearing dates are confirmed for three consecutive days, i.e., February 11-13, 2025. The Court provides remarks in preparation for the hearing and requests the upload of documents or sketches by February 4, 2025. The documents or sketches are those, which the parties may wish to refer to…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, October 20, 2024, request for production of evidence, UPC_CFI_471/2023
Request for production of evidence, Art. 49 UCA, R. 190 RoP, must be based on specific facts: As a general rule, an order to produce evidence (e.g. source codes) presupposes that a fact is relevant to substantiate claims or objections. For this purpose, the applicant must state in detail which specific fact he wishes to…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, October 20, 2024, order on request for information, UPC_CFI_471/2023
Key Takeaways Two alternatives for requests for information: The Court may order that information which is in the possession of the other or a third party is communicated. Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure provides for two alternatives for respective requests for information. The purpose of the first alternative of Rule 191 RoP is…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 17, 2024, order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_210/2023
Late request to hear expert of one party as witness in oral hearing: Court dismissed Claimant’s request – raised after the interim conference – to hear an expert appointed by Claimant as witness in the oral hearing on several grounds: (1) Firstly, as a general rule, further pleadings and requests cannot be filed after the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 9, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_219/2023 and UPC_CFI_223/2023
If the redactions in Claimant’s reply brief in an infringement action are only subject to the non-technical part, it is not justified to grant the Defendant an extension of two months for filing its rejoinder brief re. this non-technical part starting with the date from having access to the unredcated version of the non-technical part…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 3, 2024, order on protection of confidential information, UPC_CFI_219/2023
Submission in rejoinder, insofar as it concerns two third-party license agreements, will not be taken into account in the further proceedings: The submissions in the rejoinder, insofar as they concern two third-party license agreements that are subject of the requested further access restrictions, will not be taken into account in the further proceedings. The Defendants…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 31, 2024, Order concerning service, UPC_CFI_330/2024
Specification of address not required to be in line with political views of respective State [concerns: Hong Kong]: A further attempt to serve the Statement of Claim by alternative means or at another place pursuant to Rule 275.1 RoP shall not be required as soon as all possibilities of service under Rules 270-274 RoP have…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 3, 2024, Order re Protection of Confidential Information, UPC_CFI_471/2023
Access to unredacted documents is restricted to a limited group: Access to the unredacted version of the responses to the complaint is restricted on the plaintiffs’ side to the following persons: a) the plaintiffs’ legal representatives and their internal support staff, There is no reason to restrict access on the part of the plaintiffs’ authorised…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.