2024-03-14 - LD Mannheim - Panasonic v. OPPO et al. - UPC_CFI_216/2023

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's refusal to order Panasonic to produce the comparable 3G/4G SEP licence agreements on which its FRAND case rests. On a Rule 333 RoP review the panel exercises the same wide discretion conferred by Rules 9.1, 190.1, 190.3, 331, 332 and 334 RoP as the judge-rapporteur did, rather than testing his order for error. It held the production application premature: the claimant had not yet pleaded on the FRAND complex, the reply and the defence to the counterclaim were still to come, and until the Court can assess the whole dispute it cannot sensibly decide whether the documents matter. The panel added that the defendants' own conduct will be weighed when the question is reached — they had neither used the comprehensive confidentiality regime already in place to produce documents on their own initiative, nor documented any attempt to obtain their licensors' consent, nor proved rather than asserted that their contracts contain clauses barring voluntary production. The auxiliary request for an early case management conference was refused because a case management conference on confidentiality had recently been held, and leave to appeal was not granted.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Case File

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_216/2023