Opens in a new tab

Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 16 May 2024)

Date16 May 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of actionProcedural Order
Registry referenceApp_4931/2024 · ORD_6152/2024
PartiesGuangdong 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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 3 096 315
Device and method for execution of huffman coding
recorded proprietor: Panasonic Intellectual Property Corp of America
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): Xiaomi Technology Germany v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 30 September 2024 · Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 24 · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi H.K. (CFI, ORD_44601/2024, 31 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_25617/2024, 6 May 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, ORD_14581/2024, 3 · Panasonic v OROPE Germany (CFI, ORD_7587/2024, 22 February 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, ORD_7586/2024, 22 · Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 20
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.