MANNHEIM LOCAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Tobias J Hessel and Leonie Jüngels, Clifford Chance
Division was able to leave this question open. The Mannheim Local Division did not consider it detrimental that the one-month period was slightly exceeded, as it recognised the appli - cant’s legitimate interest in first conducting a laboratory analysis to provide the necessary evi - dence of infringement. Nonetheless, it can cau - tiously be assumed that the Division may adopt a similarly strict temporal framework. At this stage, it remains difficult to reliably assess the overall willingness of the Mannheim Local Division to grant preliminary relief. To date, only two applications for preliminary relief have been filed before this Division, which limits the ability to draw broader conclusions about its develop - ing practice. 3.6 Court of Appeal Substantive Jurisprudence There is no applicable information in this juris - diction. Oral hearings at the UPC’s Mannheim Local Divi - sion are conducted with remarkable structure and efficiency. Typically scheduled for a single day, these hearings are meticulously time-man - aged, allocating equal time blocks to both par - ties. The panel, including legally and technically qualified judges, is well-prepared and actively engages with the arguments, ensuring a focused and dynamic exchange. Proceedings begin with a brief introduction, fol - lowed by structured pleadings from both sides. The court then conducts a highly interactive session, posing in-depth legal and technical questions – especially around claim construc - 4. Procedural Issues 4.1 Hearing Structure
tion, infringement or FRAND-related defences in SEP cases. Witnesses or experts are heard only if previously authorised, preserving procedural economy. The Mannheim Division is known for its pragmat - ic approach, aiming to clarify issues swiftly while maintaining fairness. Parties are encouraged to avoid repetition and focus on substantive points. A decision is often reserved and delivered in writing within a few weeks. To prepare for the oral proceedings, Judge Tochtermann has issued a police order for the hearing based on RoP 111, which is available on the UPC website (in German). It contains infor - mation on the allocation of seats, opportunities for external parties to attend the hearing and press accreditation, among other things. 4.2 Key Procedural Issues Key procedural issues are described in 3.1 Top- ics Covered and 3.2 Leading Cases . 4.3 Third-Party Access to Documents In the authors’ experience, the Mannheim Local Division has so far taken a careful and balanced approach to third-party access to court docu - ments. In particular, the Division has consistently granted legitimate confidentiality protection to the parties and has actively worked with them to co-ordinate the preparation of redacted ver - sions of documents, which can then be made publicly available. In the case Panasonic v OPPO (UPC_ CFI_210/2023), a request submitted by a law firm for access to documents was granted only to a limited extent. The court justified its deci - sion by, among other things, pointing to techni - cal constraints of the UPC’s CMS, which made it difficult to ensure with certainty that only those
51
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook