2025-02-06 - 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:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Panasonic v. OPPO
Kernaussage: Finale redigierte Fassung der SEP-Entscheidung der Lokalkammer Mannheim vom 22.
2025-02-06 - LD Mannheim - Panasonic
v.
OPPO et al. - UPC_CFI_210/2023
Finale redigierte Fassung der SEP-Entscheidung der Lokalkammer Mannheim vom 22. November 2024 nach Abstimmung mit den Parteien
The Mannheim Local Division issued the first substantial FRAND decision, finding for infringement and rejecting both the counterclaim for revocation and the FRAND-Counterclaim.
This is the final, redacted version of the FRAND decision which was already published on 22 November 2024. The Local Division Mannheim stated that the redactions of this final version were approved by both parties.
This decision was published multiple times.
Stichwörter
redigierte Fassung
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The novelty attack failed on every citation. D15 (Art. 54(3) EPC) does not disclose invariable narrowband reference signals in a transmission bandwidth varying with the control channels [115]-[117]; D1 and D1a positively teach signals dependent on the control-channel variation [122]-[134]; D3 and D3a lack varying control channels and hence features 1.3.1 and 1.3.3 [139]-[144]; D2 would only anticipate on the claimant's rejected construction [145].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The obviousness attack failed. It was pleaded only on the claimant's construction of 'transmission bandwidth', which the panel did not adopt, so it cannot succeed starting from D2 [145] or otherwise [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 [95]. Omitting the 'generation section' and the 'unit of transmission' from the claim adds no matter, because the parent application shows at [0101 ff.] / [0097] that neither function need be embodied in a particular physical unit [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 [148]. It too depended on the claimant's construction of the transmission bandwidth; on the correct construction no unsampled gaps arise and the channel-quality estimation is achievable.”
Priority
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 87 EPC · derivative
“The attack on the two Japanese priorities of 14 August 2007 and 5 February 2008 was reasoned identically to the added-matter attack and fails for the same reasons; the priorities 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).