2026-04-29 - LD Mannheim - Zte v. Samsung - UPC_CFI_850/2024

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division revoked EP 3 905 730 for added matter, dismissed the infringement action that depended on it, and — the point that makes the decision significant — declined jurisdiction over the defendant's FRAND counterclaim in favour of a national court. It held that Articles 29 to 32 Brussels Ia Regulation govern concurrent proceedings between the UPC and the national courts of its member states beyond infringement and validity, at least by analogy of Article 71c, because a common court created by enhanced cooperation cannot open a route to conflicting judgments that would not exist without it. A FRAND counterclaim before the UPC and a national action to compel formation of a FRAND licence covering the same patents, licensor and licensees share the same subject-matter and the same cause of action, contractual claims under the ETSI declaration and competition-law claims under Article 102 TFEU being intertwined rather than separable; and formally different group companies count as the same party where their interests are identical enough that a judgment against one would be res judicata against the other. With the Frankfurt court first seized and its jurisdiction established, Article 29(3) required declination rather than a stay. The infringement action itself survived Article 29 — its cause of action is patent law, which a FRAND defence does not change — and the Court refused a discretionary stay under Article 30, weighing the time-limited nature of a patent against a risk of conflict arising only from a common preliminary question. On validity it held that the claims as originally filed, although their scope is not decisive for disclosure, are part of the application as a whole and count when deciding what is directly and unambiguously disclosed.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Case File

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_850/2024