2026-03-27 - LD Mannheim - Nokia v. Paramount Pictures et al. - UPC-CFI-0000739/2026

Aktenzeichen:
UPC-CFI-0000739/2026
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Art:
Decision
Parteien:
Nokia Technologies Oy v. VIMN Germany GmbH, Paramount Home Entertainment (Germany) GmbH, Paramount Pictures Germany GmbH, Paramount Global Streaming International LLC, Viacom International Inc., Paramount Pictures International Ltd., Paramount Global Italia S.r.l., Paramount Global Inc., Paramount Skydance Corporation

Kernaussage: The Mannheim Local Division permitted the withdrawal of an infringement action and of a counterclaim for revocation and made no cost decision, both sides having declared that they would file no cost applications.

2026-03-27 - LD Mannheim - Nokia v. Paramount Pictures et al. - UPC-CFI-0000739/2026
🗂️Nur Fallakte
Eine Entscheidung, mehrere Aktenzeichen

Das Gericht hat diese Verfahren zusammen entschieden und dasselbe Dokument in jedem davon eingestellt. Jeder Eintrag unten ist ein eigener vollwertiger Registereintrag.

🏛️Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division• Decision
📅2026-03-27
🔢UPC-CFI-0000739/2026
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Nokia Technologies Oy
Cordula Julia SCHUMACHER
Arno Eberhard RIßE
Jan WERGIN
Tim SMENTKOWSKI
Charlotte Josephine MEIS
Anja Katharina PENNERS
Sophia Jiayi ZENG
Victoria THÜSING
Tuğçe ALTUN
Christoph WALKE
Lars GRANNEMANN
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
VIMN Germany GmbH
Paramount Home Entertainment (Germany) GmbH
Paramount Pictures Germany GmbH
Paramount Global Streaming International LLC
Viacom International Inc.
Paramount Pictures International Ltd.
Paramount Global Italia S.r.l.
Paramount Global Inc.
Paramount Skydance Corporation
Benjamin SCHRÖER
⚖️Counter claim for revocation
🌐German
🤖🇬🇧

notable
The Mannheim Local Division permitted the withdrawal of an infringement action and of a counterclaim for revocation and made no cost decision, both sides having declared that they would file no cost applications. On reimbursement it took the view that has divided the first instance. Article 5 of the Administrative Committee's decision of 4 November 2025 makes the amended fee table and the revised Rules apply to actions and applications filed after 31 December 2025; the Division held that 'applications' there means those that trigger a fee by their filing, and cannot cover a reimbursement application, an application for leave to withdraw or any application aimed at bringing the proceedings to an early end. The legal-certainty rationale the Administrative Committee gave protects the expectations about court fees that a party formed when it filed the fee-triggering claim, and those expectations include what an early termination would do to the fees. The former Rule therefore governs a claim filed before the cut-off however late the withdrawal comes. Applying that to two proceedings straddling the cut-off, the infringement action filed in 2025 attracted 60% under the former Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP and the counterclaim for revocation filed in 2026 attracted 50% under the amended Rule. The Division cited two Court of Appeal decisions and a Hamburg decision in support and recorded that the Court of Appeal in Black Sheep v HL Display is probably of a different view.

Inoffiziell

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren