Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 16 May 2024)
| Date | 16 May 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Procedural Order |
| Registry reference | App_4931/2024 · ORD_6152/2024 |
| Parties | Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v. Panasonic Holdings Corporation |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 16 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_216/2023, App_4931/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division rejected, at this stage, the applications for production of documents filed on 4 February 2024 by OROPE Germany and Guangdong OPPO, defendants to Panasonic’s infringement action on the standard-essential patent EP 3 096 315. The order frames the disclosure of comparable licences in the FRAND debate and expressly departs from the Munich Local Division’s approach in parallel proceedings.
Question
Should the Court order, under Rule 190 RoP, production of all of the patentee’s and third parties’ SEP licences, supplier agreements and information on transfers out of the portfolio, where two comparable licences have already been produced under a confidentiality regime?
Decision
As licences X and Y have already been produced, no order is needed (paragraph 1). The request for the patentee’s other licences and those of third parties is too vague and amounts to a fishing expedition: the transparency required by the CJEU in Huawei v ZTE (paragraph 63) obliges the patentee to explain the rationale of its offer, possibly through a few comparable licences, and applies only towards an infringer willing to take a licence, absent any indication of other relevant licences, proportionality and third-party confidentiality weigh against a broader order (paragraphs 2 and 3). Supplier agreements must first be sought from the suppliers (paragraph 4), the requests on transfers out of the portfolio and financial agreements are rejected (paragraphs 5 and 6). Any later production orders are reserved.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: before the Mannheim Local Division, a defendant in SEP proceedings seeking production of licences beyond those relied on must show concretely that further relevant comparable licences exist, a blanket request covering the whole licence portfolio will be rejected.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 190 and 333
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), Court fees and costs (UPC).
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
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
Parties
- claimantOROPE Germany GmbH23 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantGuangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.24 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantPanasonic Holdings Corporation47 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Procedural Order
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les demandes d'OPPO tendant à la production de toutes les licences SEP de Panasonic et de tiers, de contrats de fournisseurs et d'informations sur les cessions du portefeuille sont rejetées en l'état, deux licences comparables ayant été produites.
- 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
EP 3 096 315mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, 16 September 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.