3 February 2025
Local Division Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Increase in Value of Litigation / Reimbursement Fee
Ruling of the Judge-Rapporteur:
- The parties settled and withdrew their claims for infringement and counterclaims for revocation.
- During the oral argument, the parties requested a pause in proceedings. The settlement followed before the Court issued a final decision.
- There are no special reasons not to apply Rule 370.9(e) RoP (which entitles a party to a 20% reimbursement of court costs).
- As the value of the litigation increased from €4 million to €8 million, the claimant must pay an additional €13,400.
- The increase in value does not affect the revocation action (fee remains €20,000), so the claimant in the revocation receives €4,000.
Comment:
- It is logical that the fee for revocation by way of counterclaim should not be higher than for a standalone revocation action (always €20,000).
- As I have said before: is it really necessary for judges to handle so many mundane administrative matters? Would it not be more efficient to leave this to the Registrar?
3 February 2025
Local Division Mannheim, Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications
Settlement after decision
The parties settled (withdrew their claims) after the first-instance decision.
The Judge-Rapporteur:
Accepted and stated there was no entitlement to reimbursement of court costs.
Comment:
- As we have seen before, withdrawing a revocation claim after a decision revoking the patent—whether during the appeal period or even while an appeal is pending—keeps the patent valid.
- It seems self-evident that if the entire first-instance proceedings have run their course, you do not get a reimbursement of court costs!
3 February 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Rule 262A RoP: Protection of Confidential Information
The Judge-Rapporteur:
- The party whose access is limited determines the number of individuals who should have access and identifies them.
- The party requesting confidentiality can then raise specific objections as to the number or identity of these individuals (despite the fact that they are subject to confidentiality obligations).
- The fact that someone is a consultant rather than an employee does not disqualify them from accessing confidential information, as a penalty payment may be imposed in case of a breach.
- A Chinese attorney is not necessarily required to be among those granted access, but representatives can include her in their legal team and will then be responsible for any breaches.
Comment:
- I believe a party should also be able to object to a foreign lawyer or non-representative who is part of the legal team being granted access to confidential information.
- I agree that representatives are responsible for their own breaches as well as those of their team members. However, I note that in Amazon v Nokia (UPC_CoA_835/2024), the Court of Appeal held that responsibility for breaches lies with the party rather than the representatives themselves. While I agree that the party should be responsible, in my opinion, the representatives themselves should also bear responsibility.
- Regarding (ex-)employees and non-employees (such as consultants) who access confidential information, both the individual and their employer or client (e.g., a consultant’s client) should, in my view, be held responsible for breaches.
4 February 2025
Local Division Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Settlement
Background:
The parties withdrew their claims and counterclaims (Rule 265 RoP).
Judge-Rapporteur:
- As Rule 265(2)(c) RoP states that the Court “shall” issue a cost decision, the Court should confirm the cost agreement between the parties.
- The withdrawal occurred after the closure of the interim proceedings. Therefore, in principle, the parties should be reimbursed 40% of the court costs (Rule 370 RoP).
- More than 40% reimbursement is not justified (even though the last material exchange was in the written proceedings) due to the complexity of all the confidentiality-related requests.
Comment:
- As I have said multiple times, when parties settle, it should not be necessary to apply Rule 265 RoP and issue unnecessary cost decisions. The parties should simply notify the Registry and, if they believe they are entitled, request reimbursement of court costs. Rule 265 RoP is intended for cases where only one party wishes to withdraw their claims. If parties wish, the Court can confirm the settlement under Rule 365 RoP.
- Considering the Court’s work in handling numerous confidentiality requests, the Court is, in my opinion, still very generous. Under Rule 370.9(e) RoP, the Court can deny or reduce reimbursement.
5 February 2025
Local Division Munich, Edwards v Meril
Infringement / Counterclaim Revocation
Order of the Judge-Rapporteur:
The parties are summoned to an oral hearing on 11 February 2025.