Opens in a new tab

Panasonic v OROPE Germany (CFI, ORD_7587/2024, 22 February 2024)

Date22 February 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric Order
Registry referenceORD_7587/2024
PartiesPanasonic Holdings Corporation v. OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.

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 an order of 22 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_216/2023), the Mannheim Local Division, in Panasonic Holdings Corporation’s infringement action on EP 3 096 315 against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., decided to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation itself, before the written procedure had closed. The order is short, but it shows that the Article 33(3) UPCA option can be settled very early, here so that a technically qualified judge could be allocated promptly.

Question

May the local division decide how to deal with the counterclaim for revocation before the written procedure has closed, and should it keep the whole dispute?

Decision

Rule 37.1 RoP calls for a decision as soon as practicable after the closure of the written procedure, but Rule 37.2 RoP allows an earlier decision once the parties have been heard. They had raised no objection. An early decision was justified because the court is still in its early days and some judges sit part-time or case by case, so the technically qualified judge should be allocated early. On the option itself, hearing infringement, revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND licence together was considered sensible on efficiency grounds and ensures that the same panel construes the patent uniformly. The judge-rapporteur is to ask the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate a technically qualified judge.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 33(3)(a)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 37.1 and 37.2

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 Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La division locale de Mannheim décide, avant la clôture de la procédure écrite et sans objection des parties, d'instruire ensemble l'action en contrefaçon et la demande reconventionnelle en nullité, et fait demander l'affectation d'un juge technicien.
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 3 096 315
Device and method for execution of huffman coding
recorded proprietor: Panasonic Intellectual Property Corp of America
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): Xiaomi Technology Germany v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 30 September 2024 · Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 24 · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi H.K. (CFI, ORD_44601/2024, 31 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 16 May 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_25617/2024, 6 May 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, ORD_14581/2024, 3 · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, ORD_7586/2024, 22 · Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 20
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.