2024-04-30 - LD Mannheim - Panasonic v. Xiaomi et al. - UPC_CFI_218/2023

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: Companion order to UPC_CFI_219/2023 (same parties, same panel, same date, different patent EP 3 096 315). Judge Tochtermann of the Mannheim Local Division applies the same general framework for self-directed and adverse production orders in SEP/FRAND litigation: neither R. 172.2 nor R. 190.1 RoP supplies a direct legal basis — R. 172.2 addresses disputed facts requiring proof, R. 190.1 RoP targets the 'opposing party' (Art. 59 UPCA) and cannot be applied to oneself or same-side co-parties. The legal basis is the court's general case-management authority under Art. 43 UPCA, R. 101, 103, 111, 331-334 RoP, informed by the primacy of EU competition law (Art. 20, 21, 24(a) UPCA; CJEU Huawei v ZTE). Before an order issues, the party must seek specific, case-informed consent from the licensee counterparty; if consent is refused without adequate reasons, production may be ordered, with proportionality measured against the need to preserve the single-day oral hearing (R. 113-114 RoP) and EU-law transparency. Consistent with LD Mannheim 25.03.2024 (UPC_CFI_365/2023) and LD Düsseldorf 27.03.2024 (UPC_CFI_355/2023), attorneys'-eyes-only clubs excluding the counterparty's natural persons violate R. 262A.6 RoP. Production of two Panasonic SEP licence agreements was ordered with permitted redaction; a third was refused; and the court declined to mandate specific confidentiality motions.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/689

Referenz: ORD_14581/2024

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_218/2023