Opens in a new tab

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 19 December 2023)

Date19 December 2023
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionApplication for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e))
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_476/2023
Registry referenceApp_594339/2023 · ORD_596384/2023 · UPC_CoA_476/2023
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 20 December 2023 (UPC_CoA_476/2023, App_594339/2023), the Court of Appeal, sitting with three legally qualified judges, rejected an application by Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany to shorten the time limit for Panasonic Holdings Corporation’s response to their statement of grounds of appeal. The appeal is against the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2023 (UPC_CFI_210/2023) refusing to change the language of the infringement proceedings on EP 2 568 724 from German to English. An order to the same effect had been made on 18 December 2023 in the parallel appeal UPC_CoA_472/2023.

Question

Should the Court of Appeal shorten, under Rules 9.3(b) and 225(e) RoP, the respondent’s 15-day period to respond to the statement of grounds so that language is decided before the statement of defence falls due on 22 December 2023?

Decision

The appellants filed their grounds on 12 December 2023 using the full 15-day period under Rules 224.1(b) and 224.2(b) RoP, shortening would have left the respondent only about four working days (paragraphs 3 to 5). The appellants had not given enough weight to the respondent’s interest in adequate time to prepare. Shortening would conflict with proportionality, fairness and equity, even though the statement of defence must now be filed in German (paragraphs 6 and 7). A procedural application raising no technical question may be decided by three legally qualified judges, applying Art. 9(2) UPCA by analogy.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts 8, 9(1) and (2), 41(3), 42 and 52(1)
Rules of Procedure
Preamble, paragraphs 2 to 4, Rules 9.3(b), 33, 34, 37.3, 57, 72, 224.1(b), 224.2(b), 225(e) and 323

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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

  • UPC_CoA_476/2023 official number

Follow this case

First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_210/2023

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 19 December 2023 Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 19 December 2023) Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) · UPC_CoA_476/2023 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
  2. 14 February 2024 Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm (CFI, 14 February 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_210/2023

    La division locale de Mannheim institue un régime de confidentialité en treize étapes pour la production des contrats de licence et diffère sa décision sur les demandes de production de la règle 190.

  3. 6 February 2025 Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_210/2023, 6 February 2025) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_210/2023

    La division locale de Mannheim juge le brevet essentiel EP 2 568 724 valable et contrefait par les terminaux 4G d’OPPO, écarte l’objection FRAND, rejette la demande reconventionnelle de fixation d’une licence FRAND et prononce une injonction sous garantie de 10 millions d’euros.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e))
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La cour d'appel rejette la demande des appelantes tendant à réduire le délai de réponse de l'intimée, les appelantes ayant elles-mêmes utilisé tout leur délai et l'intérêt de l'intimée à préparer sa réponse l'emportant.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_210/2023).
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

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 · AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten v Panasonic Holdings (CFI, · 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)
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.