Opens in a new tab

Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, ORD_3605/2025, 25 February 2025)

Date25 February 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication Rop 333
Registry referenceApp_619/2025 · ORD_3605/2025
PartiesPanasonic 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.

Contact the firm

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after Panasonic withdrew its infringement actions (EP 3 024 163) against Xiaomi and OPPO and the counterclaims were withdrawn following a settlement, had limited the refund of court fees to 40% rather than the 60% requested.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

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
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
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

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 3 024 163
Radio communication device and constellation control method
recorded proprietor: Panasonic Corp
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, 26 September 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 2 · Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 10 · Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm v Panasonic (CFI, 6 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_26378/2024, 4 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_18301/2024, 4 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_39924/2024, 4 July 2024) · Panasonic v Xiaomi (CFI, 4 December 2023)
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.