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).