2024-04-30 - LD Mannheim - Panasonic v. Xiaomi et al. - UPC_CFI_223/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_223/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Application Order
- Parteien:
- Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Xiaomi
Kernaussage: In an early SEP/FRAND case before the UPC, the Mannheim Local Division (Tochtermann) addressed a question of first instance at UPC level: how and on what procedural basis can a party be ordered to produce comparable licence agreements that are subject to strict third-party confi…
2024-04-30 - LD Mannheim - Panasonic
v.
Xiaomi et al. - UPC_CFI_223/2023
landmark
In an early SEP/FRAND case before the UPC, the Mannheim Local Division (Tochtermann) addressed a question of first instance at UPC level: how and on what procedural basis can a party be ordered to produce comparable licence agreements that are subject to strict third-party confidentiality clauses. The court held that Rules 172.2 and 190.1 RoP are not directly applicable in this context — they presuppose contested facts and are phrased as operating against an opposing party, which does not fit self-directed production or same-side disclosure. Instead, the basis for ordering production is the general active case-management power under Art. 43 UPCA, crystallised through R. 101, 103, 111, 331-334 RoP, informed by the primacy of EU competition law (Art. 101/102 TFEU and Huawei v ZTE). As a prerequisite, the party must first seek the contractual partner's consent in a concrete, case-specific manner; attorneys-eyes-only clauses imposed without the party's consent contravene R. 262A.6 RoP. Early production promotes both transparency in FRAND negotiations and the one-day oral hearing principle.
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).