MANNHEIM LOCAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Tobias J Hessel and Leonie Jüngels, Clifford Chance
states, the UPC offers a powerful alternative to national proceedings. However, the future of national patent litigation, particularly in Germany, a jurisdiction long favoured for its efficiency and expertise, remains a subject of significant inter - est. For years, the Regional Court of Mannheim has been one of Germany’s most prominent ven - ues for patent litigation. Known for its technical competence, experienced judges and relatively quick proceedings, Mannheim has been espe - cially attractive to patent holders, particularly in sectors such as telecommunications, electronics and medical devices. Alongside Düsseldorf and Munich, it forms part of Germany’s “big three” patent courts. With the UPC’s establishment, Mannheim was selected as one of Germany’s four local divisions (alongside Düsseldorf, Ham - burg and Munich). The UPC Local Division Man - nheim is situated close to the Regional Court and draws on the region’s strong IP infrastruc - ture and legal talent. So far, the Mannheim UPC Division has seen a notable number of filings, especially in telecom - munications and electronics, indicating early popularity among patent holders. The Division has also been involved in some of the first-ever FRAND decisions issued by the UPC, highlight - ing its role as a serious forum for international IP disputes. While the UPC has begun to attract a growing share of patent litigation, national courts like the Mannheim Regional Court remain very much in operation. European patents granted before the UPC (and those not opted into the UPC) became operational are still enforceable exclusively before national courts. Moreover, some plaintiffs may continue to prefer national courts for various reasons. Litigants and their attorneys are accustomed to German national procedures and judicial reasoning. National bifurcation (separate proceedings for validity and infringement) and tailored procedural strate -
gies still appeal to certain claimants – and until at least 2030, patent holders can choose between the UPC and national courts, making dual-track litigation a viable option. Germany’s role as a hub for patent enforcement is unlikely to diminish with the rise of the UPC. Instead, a rebalancing of jurisdictions is being seen, with Mannheim emerging as a pivotal loca - tion for both national and European patent liti - gation. The coexistence of the Regional Court of Mannheim and the UPC Local Division Man - nheim represents not a redundancy, but rather a strategic advantage – offering litigants a choice between established national processes and a new, unified European framework. A healthy competitive dynamic is beginning to emerge between the UPC and national courts, particularly in Germany. National patent courts are clearly making efforts to distinguish them - selves through increased procedural efficiency. In particular, there is a noticeable trend among German courts to expedite proceedings and issue judgments more swiftly than the UPC, in part to maintain their relevance and appeal for rights holders. This development is likely to benefit the broader patent litigation landscape in Europe by driving both systems to maintain high standards of speed, predictability and legal quality. 6.4 Improvements to the UPC Promoting Consistency and Transparency in Decision-Making One of the UPC’s core strengths lies in its poten - tial to create a unified body of case law. To real - ise this vision, it may be helpful to further pro - mote the UPC’s resources, allowing the judges to spend more time on each case using the entire bandwidth of procedural options foreseen in the RoP. In addition, a searchable database of
56
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook