Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 22 November 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 22 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_210/2023, ACT_545551/2023), the presiding judge and rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division (Judge Tochtermann), in Panasonic Holdings Corporation’s infringement action on EP 2 568 724 against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications, dismissed the defendants’ application, filed the day before, to stay the proceedings and cancel the pronouncement set for 22 November 2024, or to postpone it to 6 December 2024 at the earliest.

Question

Can the defendants obtain, on the eve of the pronouncement and without the claimant’s consent, a stay under Rule 295 or a postponement of the decision?

Decision

None of the conditions of Rule 295 is met: a stay under Rule 295(d) requires a joint application, and the claimant objected on 18 November 2024. Nor does Rule 295(m) justify a stay: the defendants cannot dispose of the proceedings alone, the claimant is entitled to a decision, and the defendants left the court uncertain until the last moment whether a decision was needed. The pronouncement date had been communicated to the parties on 4 November 2024. Neither a stay nor cancellation or postponement of the pronouncement was therefore possible. Part of the reasons is redacted in the published version.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a unilateral stay application made on the eve of the pronouncement, against the other side’s objection, cannot delay the decision, since Rule 295(d) requires both parties’ agreement.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rule 295(d) and (m)

Case law cited

No UPC decision is cited.

Related decisions

• Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm, 22 November 2024, decision of the same day in the infringement action.

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.