1. Key takeaways
Plaintiff in infringement proceedings can request an order, directed against themselves, to produce an SEP license agreement with a third party. In accordance with the principle of production of evidence (Art. 43 UPCA), the plaintiff must decide for themselves which submissions they wish to make in the proceedings.
A third party's objection against the presentation of the SEP license agreement, or the lack of response by the third party, does not prevent the Plaintiff from seeking the order to produce the license agreement. However, a third party may request to be involved in the proceedings.
he court may disregard procedural steps, facts, evidence or arguments if these were not undertaken or provided by the party within the time limit set by the court (R. 9.2 RoP).
2. Division
Court of First Instance – Mannheim (DE) Local Division
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_ 218/2023
UPC_CFI_ 219/2023
UPC_CFI_ 223/2023
4. Type of proceedings
application re producing license agreements
5. Parties
Plaintiff: Panasonic Holdings Corporation
Defendants:
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S
Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L
Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
Odiporo GmbH
Shamrock Mobile GmbH
6. Patent
EP 3096315
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 43 UPCA, R. 9.2 RoP, R. 172.2 RoP, R. 190 RoP, R. 191 RoP
To view the full article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.