MANNHEIM LOCAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Tobias J Hessel and Leonie Jüngels, Clifford Chance
• EP4001835 – Faro v PMT Technologies (pro - visional measures (Rule of Procedure (RoP) 206, pending); • EP2223589 – Windhager v bellissa (infringe - ment and revocation action, pending); • EP1993363 – Pohl-Boskamp v pharma- aktiva/ALDI (provisional measures (RoP206), pending); • EP3577874 – ZTE v Samsung (infringement action, pending); • EP3905730 – ZTE v Samsung (infringement action, pending); • EP2689624 – HFI Innovation v Huawei (infringement action, pending); and • EP3567731 – Huawei v MediaTek (infringe - ment action, pending). 3.4 Technically Qualified Judges Based on the authors’ observations, the TQJ has proven to be a valuable and well-integrat - ed member of the judicial panel in proceed - ings before the Mannheim Local Division. Far from playing a peripheral role, the TQJ actively contributes to the case by raising independent questions and engaging directly with technical aspects of the matter. It is also evident that the legally qualified judges on the panel take care to ensure that the TQJ’s input is meaningfully addressed during oral hear - ings. They regularly provide the TQJ with space to articulate specific points or concerns and ensure that parties respond accordingly. This collaborative dynamic underscores the seri - ousness with which the court approaches the integration of technical expertise into its judicial decision-making. The consistent inclusion of the TQJ’s perspec - tive not only strengthens the technical foun - dation of the deliberations but also reflects a
broader commitment to delivering high-quality decisions. 3.5 Influence of Prior Local Practice on Substantive Legal Decisions In the authors’ experience, the Mannheim Local Division works with the same precision, proactiv - ity and attention to detail as the well-established Regional Court of Mannheim. When it comes to granting interim measures, the Mannheim Local Division and the UPC more broadly appears to apply slightly more gener - ous standards than the German national courts. One of the key differences lies in the assessment of the patent’s validity. While German national courts often require that the patent in question has survived either opposition and/or nullity pro - ceedings, or at least has a robust licensing histo - ry suggesting market acceptance, the UPC has so far accepted a lower evidentiary threshold. This was illustrated in the Pohl-Boskamp v Pharma-Aktiva decision (UPC_CFI_541/2024), in which the Mannheim Local Division granted interim measures relying on sufficient certainty of the validity. This sufficient certainty is lack - ing if the court considers it to be highly prob - able that the patent is not valid. The burden of proof lies with the defendant, as the Mannheim Local Division states in accordance with the Court of Appeal (order or 26 February 2024, UPC_CoA_335/2023). Whether the Mannheim Local Division applies the same strict urgency standard as the Ger - man national courts, namely, that a request for interim measure must be filed no later than one month after the applicant first had the oppor - tunity to act against the defendant, has not yet been definitively answered. In its Pohl-Boskamp v Pharma-Aktiva decision, the Mannheim Local
50
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook