2024-03-14 - LD Mannheim - Panasonic v. OPPO et al. - UPC_CFI_210/2023

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: This is the parallel Mannheim order on EP 2 568 724, where the defendants had brought counterclaims both for revocation and for determination of a FRAND rate. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's refusal to order Panasonic to produce its comparable 3G/4G SEP licences, exercising under Rule 333 RoP the same wide discretion conferred by Rules 9.1, 190.1, 190.3, 331, 332 and 334 RoP rather than reviewing his order for error. Production was premature: it remained open whether the claimant would engage with the FRAND complex and the rate-determination counterclaim, whose admissibility was itself in doubt because no fee had been paid and submissions on that question were outstanding, and the reply fell due ten days later. The panel added a point specific to this case — the defendants had not underpinned their rate-determination counterclaim with facts already in their hands, having produced neither an unredacted version of their party expert opinion nor the contracts it rests on, although the judge-rapporteur had explained in detail how those could reach the Court without any risk of disclosure to the other side. The auxiliary request for an early case management conference was refused and leave to appeal was not granted.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Case File

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_210/2023