Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, ORD_3605/2025, 25 February 2025)
| Date | 25 February 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application Rop 333 |
| Registry reference | App_619/2025 · ORD_3605/2025 |
| Parties | 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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By a joint order of 25 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_220/2023 and UPC_CFI_221/2023), the panel of the Munich Local Division upheld the judge-rapporteur’s orders of 23 and 24 December 2024 which, after Panasonic withdrew its infringement actions (EP 3 024 163) against Xiaomi and OPPO and the counterclaims were withdrawn following a settlement, had limited the refund of court fees to 40% rather than the 60% requested. The order illustrates the exceptional power of reduction in Rule 370.9(e).
Question
Can the 60% refund of court fees available on withdrawal before the close of the written procedure be reduced because of the workload the Court has already borne?
Decision
Yes. The panel left open whether the 60% rate under Rule 370.9(b)(i) requires formal notice of the close of the written procedure or whether de facto closure, once all pleadings have been exchanged (Rule 12.1), is enough. The sliding scale in Rule 370.9(b) is meant to reflect the work the Court has already done, and Rule 370.9(e) allows it, in exceptional cases and having regard to the stage of the proceedings, to refuse or reduce the refund. The dispute was extremely complex and intensively litigated up to withdrawal, generating an exceptional workload, as shown by the number of workflows in the case management system (counterclaims, applications to amend, numerous demanding confidentiality and referral applications). A refund of 40% per claimant was justified. Any remaining workflows were closed.
Key points for practice
- Parties that settle late in a hard-fought dispute cannot count on the maximum fee refund. The Court may reduce it to reflect the work already done.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 12.1, 333 and 370.9
- Case law cited
- Mannheim Local Division, 4 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_223/2023)
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: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents.
Dhenne Avocats blog: FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).
Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.
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
- claimantPanasonic Holdings Corporation47 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application Rop 333
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les ordonnances du juge rapporteur sont confirmées : Panasonic n'obtient que 40 % de remboursement des taxes judiciaires dans chacune des deux actions.
- 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 3 024 163mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Panasonic (CFI, 25 February 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.