Opens in a new tab

AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten v Panasonic Holdings (CFI, 26 March 2025)

Date26 March 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication RoP262.1 (b)
Registry referenceApp_5154/2025 · ORD_5519/2025
PartiesAMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_210/2023, ORD_5519/2025), Judge-rapporteur Tochtermann, presiding judge of the Mannheim Local Division, provisionally and partly granted the law firm AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten access to the file in Panasonic Holdings’ infringement action on EP 2 568 724 against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany. Panasonic must provide redacted versions of the listed documents on an encrypted data carrier or through an encrypted online data room. The remainder of the application was rejected.

Question

To what extent, and how, may a third party relying on a general and academic interest obtain access to the file in a voluminous case?

Decision

Applying the Court of Appeal’s guidelines (UPC_CoA_404/2023) and taking account of the burden on the parties in a highly complex case, the judge limited access, for now, to the auxiliary request of 11 March 2025, leaving room for further interests to be specified later (paragraph 1). Access through the CMS was ruled out: the number of workflows, recurring system errors and submissions containing secrets without a matching confidentiality workflow meant it could not be ensured that only the intended documents would be released, so Panasonic must extract the documents as PDFs (paragraph 2). Within those limits, the general interest in UPC proceedings and the interest in contributing to academic publications justify access (paragraph 3).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 262.1(b) and 262.2
Case law cited
Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_404/2023 (Ocado v Autostore)

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Confidentiality club.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application RoP262.1 (b)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
L'accès est accordé provisoirement pour les seules pièces visées par la demande subsidiaire, sous forme de versions expurgées remises par Panasonic sur support ou salle de données chiffrés. Le surplus est rejeté.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 568 724
Radio Communication Device and Radio Communication Method
recorded proprietor: Panasonic Intellectual Property Corp of America
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 25 other decision(s): Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_210/2023, 6 F · Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 22 · Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 3 · Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 22 November 2024) · Xiaomi Technology Germany v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 30 September 2024 · Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 24 · Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 17 September 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, 16 September 2024
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.