Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm (CFI, 27 June 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 27 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_210/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division (Dr Tochtermann), in Panasonic Holdings Corporation’s infringement action on EP 2 568 724 against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., which have brought a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim seeking the setting of a rate, gave the parties procedural observations. The order decides nothing, but its headnotes set out useful requirements on pleadings and on the FRAND counterclaim.

Question

What is required as to explaining claim features, late requests to amend, and the admissibility of a FRAND counterclaim framed as declarations?

Decision

In technically complex matters, the Statement of claim should already explain how unclear features are to be interpreted (Rule 13.1(n) RoP), the judge considers the possible consequences of an explanation given only in the Reply, from a direction under Rule 9 RoP to no sanction at all. In the Defence to the counterclaim, the patentee must tie its arguments to specific features. Rule 30.2 RoP is described as a strict preclusion rule: a later amendment requires leave and detailed reasons, and a general reservation of future amendments raises concerns. On the FRAND counterclaim, the defendants must clarify requests that are purely declaratory. The judge doubts their commitment to conclude a licence on terms set by the UPC without reservation, and observes that drafting the essential terms of a licence is not the court’s task. The parties may respond within the running time limits of the written procedure.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party bringing a declaratory FRAND counterclaim should expect its legal interest to be questioned if it does not firmly commit to take a licence on the terms set by the UPC.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 13.1, 30.2 and 355

Case law cited

Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences, Paris Central Division, 27 February 2024, UPC_CFI_255/2023

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.