Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 16 September 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 16 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_210/2023), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division organised the oral hearing in Panasonic’s infringement action against OROPE Germany and Guangdong OPPO concerning EP 2 568 724, and set the value in dispute at more than EUR 50 million. The order is mainly organisational, but it shows that the value stated in the statement of claim may be reassessed during the proceedings when a FRAND counterclaim widens the dispute.

Question

How should the hearing be organised, and what value in dispute should apply once the defendants have brought a FRAND counterclaim?

Decision

The hearing is split: a first day for technical issues (claim construction, validity, infringement) and a second for FRAND, the counterclaim in this case being heard separately from that in the parallel case UPC_CFI_219/2023 against Xiaomi. By 27 September 2024 the parties must name the participants, including those attending remotely, send any graphics, state which language they will use for each issue and file a preliminary cost estimate under Rule 104(k). The value in dispute is set at more than EUR 50 million under Rule 370.6, in view of the FRAND counterclaim and the claimant’s requests in response. The value stated in the statement of claim does not reflect that stage and appears low given the territories asserted.

Key points for practice

• A FRAND counterclaim may lead the division to raise the value in dispute of its own motion, with consequences for the ceiling on recoverable costs.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 104 and 370.6

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.