2025-04-02 - LD Mannheim - Corning v. TCL et al. - UPC_CFI_819/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_819/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Application Order
- Parteien:
- Corning v. Hisense, TCL, LG Electronics
Kernaussage: 1.
2025-04-02 - LD Mannheim - Corning
v.
TCL et al. - UPC_CFI_819/2024
1. There is no such obligation always to sue OEMs and suppliers in one proceeding.
2. In case of disobedience of a court order, the court will have to decide, if such procedural behaviour calls for penalty payments so as to enforce that order, R. 354.3 and 4 RoP.
3. R. 370.9(e)RoP allows to deny or decrease reimbursement of fees by taking into account the behaviour of the party.
4. Art. 69 UPCA allows the court, in its cost decision, to decide upon the reasonableness of costs produced in the course of the proceedings and attribute them accordingly.
The Mannheim Local Division rejected an application to stay the proceedings (Rule 295) that was based on the fact that the Claimant had not sued all OEMs and suppliers in the same proceedings which allegedly limited the defendants possibility to defend against the infringement action as they were dependent on the input of the manufacturer with whom they had no contractual relationship. The Court disagreed and stated that the claimant was free to sue the parties in separate proceedings.
The Court further ordered that the Defendants (who all had the same representative) file their submission in one workflow instead of 9 different workflows that their representative had used.
For the sake of completeness: The decision's official headnotes (2.-4.) do not seem to match the decision's content.
Stichwörter
costs, suppliers