2024-11-22 - LD Mannheim - Panasonic v. OPPO et al. - UPC_CFI_210/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_210/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
Kernaussage: Bei der vorliegend veroeffentlichten Entscheidung handelt es sich um eine vorlaeufige, von Seiten des Gerichts weitgehend redigierte Fassung.
2024-11-22 - LD Mannheim - Panasonic
v.
OPPO et al. - UPC_CFI_210/2023
Bei der vorliegend veroeffentlichten Entscheidung handelt es sich um eine vorlaeufige, von Seiten des Gerichts weitgehend redigierte Fassung. Der Umfang der vor dem Hintergrund des erforderlichen Geheimnisschutzes nach Regel 262a VerfO veranlassten finalen Redaktionen wird im Nachgang unter Anhörung der Parteien bestimmt. Die finale redigierte Fassung der Entscheidung wird nach Abschluss dieses Verfahrens auf der Homepage eingestellt werden.
The Mannheim Local Division issued the first substantial FRAND decision, finding for infringement and rejecting both the counterclaim for revocation and the FRAND-Counterclaim.
The published decision is largely redacted by the court and only constitutes a preliminary version.
The final version was published on 10 February 2025 (https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/59283).
Stichwörter
SEP, FRAND, amicus curiae letter, FRAND-Widerklage, anti-suit injunction, Lizenzwilligkeit
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Every novelty attack failed. VB-T D15 (EP 2 129 022 A1, an Art. 54(3) EPC document) presents five distributions as interchangeable and so does not directly and unambiguously disclose invariable narrow-band reference signals in a bandwidth varying with the control channels [99]-[117]; D1 and D1a expressly make the sounding bandwidth depend on the variable control-channel overhead [118]-[134]; D3 and D3a disclose no varying control channels [135]-[144]; D2 was anticipatory only on the claimant's own rejected construction [145]. Claim 1 is novel, so the ground did not succeed.”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The inventive-step attack failed. The panel held it was pleaded only on the claimant's construction of 'transmission bandwidth', which the panel did not adopt, so the attack falls with that premise [145], [149].”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The Art. 138(1)(c), 76(1), 65(2) EPC attack failed. Omitting the 'generation section' and the 'unit of transmission' from claim 1 is not an unallowable extension: the parent application shows at [0101] ff. and [0097] that the functionality need not be embodied in a particular physical unit [95]-[97].”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“The Art. 138(1)(b), 65(2) EPC attack failed. The alleged unsampled gaps arise only on the claimant's construction of 'transmission bandwidth', which the panel rejected; on the correct construction the invention is sufficiently disclosed to the skilled person [148].”
Priority
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 87 EPC · derivative
“The priority attack failed. It was pleaded on the same added-matter reasoning and falls with it; the priorities of JP 2007211548 (14 Aug 2007) and JP 2008025535 (5 Feb 2008) are validly claimed [98].”
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (German).