Opens in a new tab

Hisense Europe v Corning (CFI, 3 April 2025)

Date3 April 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of actionPreliminary objection
Registry referenceApp_8203/2025 · ORD_10672/2025
PartiesHisense 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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
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

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 3 296 274 B1
Fining 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 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.