MANNHEIM LOCAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Tobias J Hessel and Leonie Jüngels, Clifford Chance
es the authors’ confidence in the UPC’s ability to handle infringement and nullity proceedings together effectively. 1.3 Specific Procedural Issues To date, the authors have not experienced any significant procedural difficulties before the Local Division Mannheim. The only issues encountered are those related to the case man - agement system (CMS), which are common across various locations. These CMS-related challenges are well-documented and are being addressed through ongoing maintenance and resolution efforts. The authors remain confident that these technical issues will continue to be managed effectively, ensuring smooth proceed - ings in the future. Since the inception of the UPC, the Local Divi - sion Mannheim has distinguished itself through particularly proactive and effective case man - agement. Especially during the early phase of the Court’s operation, the Mannheim division has demonstrated a strong commitment to pro - cedural efficiency and practical co-ordination. Judges in Mannheim have taken an active role in guiding proceedings, ensuring that cases move forward in a focused and structured man - ner. This includes the timely issuance of proce - dural orders, the clear setting of deadlines and constructive interaction with the parties during interim conferences. As a result, parties have experienced a litigation environment that is both predictable and purpose-driven. In addition, the Mannheim Local Division had to decide on the first fair, reasonable and non-dis - criminatory (FRAND) counterclaim. In the case of Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Guang - dong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd (UPC_CFI_210/2023), the Mannheim Local
Division rendered its first substantive decision on a FRAND defence and counterclaim on 22 November 2024. Panasonic accused OPPO of infringing its standard-essential patent (SEP) EP 2 568 724, which pertains to 4G commu - nication technology. In response, OPPO filed a counterclaim seeking a determination that Panasonic’s SEP was subject to FRAND obliga - tions, an order compelling Panasonic to submit a specific FRAND licence offer or, alternatively, a declaratory judgment confirming OPPO’s right to a FRAND licence. 1.4 Regional Division Competence There is no applicable information in this juris - diction. 1.5 Central Division Competence There is no applicable information in this juris - diction. 1.6 Court of Appeal: Purpose and Procedure There is no applicable information in this juris - diction. The case load overview of the UPC, covering the period from its commencement on 1 June 2023 to 31 May 2025, provides insight into the activities of the Local Division Mannheim. Dur - ing this timeframe, the Mannheim Division has been involved in 45 infringement actions, which are proceedings initiated to address alleged pat - ent violations. Additionally, there have been 48 counterclaims for revocation, where defendants challenge the validity of the patent in question. 2. Statistical Information 2.1 Types of Actions
46
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook