2024-04-30 - LD Mannheim - Panasonic v. Xiaomi et al. - UPC_CFI_219/2023

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division articulated a general framework for self-directed and adverse production orders in SEP/FRAND infringement litigation. Judge Tochtermann held that neither R. 172.2 nor R. 190.1 RoP supplies a direct legal basis: R. 172.2 presupposes disputed facts requiring proof, whereas comparable-licence disclosure typically supports first-time pleading; R. 190.1 RoP is directed to the opposing party (Art. 59 UPCA), not to one's self or to a same-side co-party. The legal basis is instead the court's general case-management power 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 such an order, the party must seek specific, case-informed consent from the licensee counterparty; if consent is refused without adequate reasons the court may order production, with proportionality measured against the timing of the oral hearing, the need to preserve transparency for FRAND negotiations, and the avoidance of R. 113-114 RoP adjournments. 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. On the facts, production of two Panasonic SEP licence agreements was ordered, with permission to redact passages not relied on; a third production request was refused; and the court declined to mandate specific confidentiality motions, which remain at the producing party's election under Art. 43 UPCA.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/690

Referenz: ORD_14600/2024

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_219/2023