Corning v Hisense Gorenje Germany (CFI, 2 April 2025)
| Date | 2 April 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_8316/2025 · ORD_8478/2025 |
| Parties | Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH |
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 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_819/2024), Judge Tochtermann, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur at the Mannheim Local Division, rejected the applications for a stay (Rule 295(m) RoP) filed by nine Hisense, TCL and LG group companies, defendants to Corning Incorporated’s infringement action on EP 3 296 274. They sought a stay until a final decision in Corning’s parallel action against the alleged glass manufacturer (UPC_CFI_820/2024) or, in the alternative, joinder and a stay until service in China and Hong Kong. The preliminary objections will be dealt with in a separate decision.
Question
Must an action against distributors be stayed where the patentee sues the alleged supplier in separate proceedings?
Decision
There is no obligation always to sue device makers and their suppliers in one proceeding. Separate actions are common, especially where service is difficult (paragraph 1). The fair trial argument was vague, since the defendants may know the properties of the products they sell, and joinder may still be considered once service on the suppliers has been effected (paragraph 2). An alleged lack of jurisdiction under Article 33(1)(b) UPCA does not call for a stay (paragraph 3). Whether the glass sheets are identical is a question of substance (paragraph 4). As duplicate filings cause needless work, the parties must, unless the Rules require otherwise, use a single CMS workflow, on pain of penalty payments (Rule 354.3 and 4 RoP) and with possible costs consequences (paragraph 5).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a distributor cannot obtain a stay merely because the patentee is suing the maker of the accused component in separate proceedings.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts 33(1)(b) and 69
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 295(m), 354.3, 354.4 and 370.9(e)
- Case law cited
- No UPC decision is cited.
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
- 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
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les demandes de sursis des défenderesses sont rejetées, et les parties doivent utiliser un seul flux du CMS pour leurs demandes communes.
- 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
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.