MANNHEIM LOCAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Tobias J Hessel and Leonie Jüngels, Clifford Chance
the Central Division, opting instead for compre - hensive case management within its own panel. However, this consolidated handling of infringe - ment and revocation claims also increases the overall scope and complexity of the proceed - ings. Cases become significantly more demand - ing, both in terms of judicial resources and party submissions, often requiring more intensive pre - paratory work and detailed technical analysis within a compressed procedural framework. If this trend continues, there is a realistic pros - pect that the current ability to schedule hearings and reach decisions within tight timeframes may be challenged. As the volume of such compre - hensive cases grows, maintaining early hear - ing dates and swift resolutions may become increasingly difficult. In the longer term, this raises questions about judicial capacity and procedural sustainabil - ity. Balancing the benefits of unified decision- making within local divisions against the need for efficiency and timely adjudication will likely become an important topic in the evolving prac - tice of the UPC. As the Mannheim Local Division has already dealt with many legal issues, only excerpts are reported here. Enforcement of SEPs and FRAND Obligations The Mannheim Local Division’s decision in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd (UPC_CFI_210/2023) on 22 November 2024 is the first substantive ruling by the UPC on SEPs 3. Substantive Law 3.1 Topics Covered
and FRAND licensing obligations. The court applied the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Hua - wei v ZTE case, emphasising the necessity for a willing licensee to provide relevant sales data and engage in good-faith negotiations. The deci - sion also addressed the admissibility of FRAND counterclaims within the UPC framework. Jurisdictional Considerations in Cross-Border Patent Infringement Cases In the case of Hurom Co Ltd v NUC Electron - ics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK (UPC_ CFI_159/2024), the Mannheim Local Division examined jurisdictional issues arising from acts of infringement occurring before and after the entry into force of the UPC Agreement (UPCA) on 1 June 2023. The court determined that the applicable substantive law depends on the tim - ing of the alleged infringing act, applying the UPCA to acts committed after its entry into force and national laws to acts committed before. If the infringing act is “ongoing”, the UPCA is applicable with exceptions. Service of Process on Non-European Defendants In the Panasonic v Xiaomi case, the Mannheim Local Division rejected Panasonic’s request to consider service on Xiaomi Germany as effec - tive for its affiliates in China and Hong Kong. The court emphasised the necessity of attempt - ing service through formal channels, such as the Hague Service Convention, before seeking approval for alternative service methods, under - scoring the importance of adhering to procedur - al rules to ensure fairness. In addition, there is the FRAND counterclaim, which was explained in the foregoing.
48
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook