Hisense Europe v Corning (CFI, 3 April 2025)
| Date | 3 April 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Preliminary objection |
| Registry reference | App_8203/2025 · ORD_10672/2025 |
| Parties | Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH v. Corning Incorporated |
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 3 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_819/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objections of the Hisense, TCL and LG group companies, sued together by Corning for infringement of EP 3 296 274 through the sale in Germany of televisions incorporating glass sheets obtained by a patented process. Leave to appeal was refused.
Question
May a patent proprietor sue together before a local division, under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, distributors belonging to three competing groups with no commercial link between them?
Decision
Yes. The Court has international jurisdiction under Articles 7(2) and 71b(1) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, and the Mannheim division is competent under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, reinforced by Rule 303.1 RoP: the facts alleged in the statement of claim suffice for each defendant, whether the products are in fact identical being a matter for the merits (paragraph 1). Corning was not required to sue the glass manufacturer, pursued separately (UPC_CFI_820/2024), in the same proceedings, and Article 33(1)(b) UPCA need not be considered (paragraphs 1 and 2).
The fair trial argument failed: the groups, which accept that each could be sued separately, may join forces in their defence and indeed instructed the same representatives (paragraph 3). The auxiliary request for joinder and a stay falls outside the exhaustive list in Rule 19 RoP and had already been rejected on 2 April 2025 (paragraph 4).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: Article 33(1)(a) UPCA allows several alleged infringers acting in the same territory to be sued together, even if competitors, a preliminary objection is not the vehicle for a stay or joinder.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 33(1)(a) and (b)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 19, 220.2 and 303.1
- Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012
- Arts 7(2) and 71b(1)
- Case law cited
- Aylo Freesites v DISH, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_188/2024)
Related decisions
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: Local and central divisions (UPC).
Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction, Valeo v. Bosch and the Redistribution of Cases Within the UPC (Kluwer Patent Blog).
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
- defendantCorning Incorporated11 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantHisense Gorenje Germany GmbH3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantHisense Europe Holding GmbH3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Preliminary objection
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les exceptions préliminaires sont rejetées : la division de Mannheim est compétente pour chaque défenderesse au titre de l'article 33, paragraphe 1, a), et l'autorisation de faire appel est refusée.
- 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 3 296 274 B1mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Corning v Hisense Gorenje Germany (CFI, 3 October 2025) cited in this record
- AYLO Premium v DISH Technologies (CoA, 3 September 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 296 274 B1Fining of boroalumino silicate glasses recorded proprietor: Corning Inc | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 12 other decision(s): TCL EUROPE v Corning (CFI, 24 February 2026) · Corning v TCL Deutschland (CFI, UPC_CFI_819/2024, 16 April 2026) · Corning v Hisense Gorenje Germany (CFI, 18 February 2026) · TCL EUROPE v Corning (CFI, 1 December 2025) · Corning v Hisense Gorenje Germany (CFI, 3 October 2025) · TCL Europe v Corning (CFI, 8 September 2025) · Corning v Hisense Gorenje Germany (CFI, 2 July 2025) · TCL Europe v Corning (CFI, 13 June 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.