Opens in a new tab

Corning v Hisense Gorenje Germany (CFI, 2 April 2025)

Date2 April 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_8316/2025 · ORD_8478/2025
PartiesHisense 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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
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

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.