Panasonic and Kather Augenstein launch first major SEP campaign at UPC against Oppo and Xiaomi

Panasonic filed the claims at the end of July. A UPC search website run by patent attorney Joeri Beetz shows seven claims are now pending at the court of first instance. According to JUVE Patent information, Panasonic has filed the cases at the local divisions in Mannheim and Munich. However, JUVE Patent does not know which lawsuit was filed at which local division.

Panasonic has accused Oppo and various Oppo subsidiaries of infringing four patents. EP 2 584 854 protects a technology for a ‘channel arrangement method and wireless communication base station device’ (case ID: ACT_546122/2023), while EP 2 207 270 protects a ‘wireless communication base station apparatus’ (case ID: ACT_545770/2023). EP 2 568 724 covers a ‘radio communication device and radio communication method’ (case ID: ACT_545551/2023) and EP 3 096 315 protects a ‘device and method for execution of Huffman coding’.

Miriam Kiefer

Xiaomi and various subsidiaries are facing claims concerning EP 315 (case ID: ACT_545606/2023), EP 724 (case ID: ACT_545615/2023) and EP 270. The patents relate to the 4G standard.

The tip of the iceberg

It is not yet clear whether the seven UPC lawsuits represent Panasonic’s entire campaign against Oppo and Xiaomi. Currently, there is still a time delay before lawsuits are published in the UPC’s CMS system. It is therefore possible that Beetz’s UPC search website has not yet been able to publish all of the lawsuits Panasonic has filed at the UPC.

Christof Augenstein

With such a large-scale campaign, it is also likely that Panasonic will file national lawsuits in Germany and other countries. However, the company and its litigation representatives did not comment on the lawsuits to JUVE Patent.

First UPC case for Kather Augenstein

Düsseldorf IP boutique Kather Augenstein filed all the UPC cases for Panasonic, with partners Christof Augenstein, Miriam Kiefer and Christopher Weber. The firm has a long-standing relationship with the Japanese company, but has not yet litigated on its behalf. Recently, the firm led a major campaign for regular client Ericsson against Apple, which was settled before the UPC launch.

All four patents-in-suit were filed by German IP firm Grünecker.

Christopher Weber

Oppo and Xiaomi’s UPC representatives are currently unknown. In its dispute with Nokia, Oppo is currently relying on Hogan Lovells, Bardehle Pagenberg, and Dutch firm Brinkhof. Taylor Wessing is acting for the company in other proceedings.

Xiaomi has recently retained various law firms for patent litigation in Europe, including Simmons & Simmons, Noerr, Vossius & Partner, Hogan Lovells, Bardehle Pagenberg, and Kirkland & Ellis.

First major SEP battle

Until now, owners of mobile communication patents have been very reluctant to bring UPC lawsuits. Only Philips enforced three patents against Belkin in the first few days after the court’s launch. The patents are relevant to the Qi standard. Huawei has also filed a claim at the Munich local division over EP 3 611 989, which is relevant to the WIFI 6 standard.

With the seven suits against Oppo and Xiaomi, eleven of the approximately 25 infringement claims at the UPC now concern standard essential patents.

Update 15.8.23: Panasonic is not limiting its patent litigation campaign against Oppo and Xiaomi to the UPC. Last week, the company announced it has also filed lawsuits against the two Chinese mobile manufacturers in Germany, the UK and China. All patents are relevant for the WCDMA and LTE standards.

According to JUVE Patent information, Panasonic is asserting multiple patents in a single action against Oppo and Xiaomi at the UK High Court. Bristows partners Sophie Lawrance and Richard Pinckney are handling the case. It is not yet known who is defending the two mobile phone manufacturers. However, in the past Oppo has relied on the London-based Hogan Lovells team in disputes with Nokia, and on Taylor Wessing in disputes with InterDigital. Xiaomi’s most recent UK work included Simmons & Simmons and Kirkland & Ellis.

In addition, Panasonic said it has filed several lawsuits against both mobile phone companies at the Mannheim and Munich Regional Courts with the support of Kather Augenstein. Panasonic did not provide any details about the lawsuits, which are currently being served to Oppo and Xiaomi. Consequently, Mannheim and Munich Regional Courts were unable to provide information to JUVE Patent concerning the number of actions, the patents-in-suit and case IDs.

Furthermore, Panasonic is said to have filed five more lawsuits at the UPC in addition to the previously known seven. In the meantime, four lawsuits have become public knowledge. In Munich, Panasonic has accused both mobile phone manufacturers of infringing EP 3 024 163, which protects a radio communication device and constellation control method (case IDs: ACT_545619/2023 and ACT_545620/2023). The Japanese company has also enforced EP 2 197 132 against both Oppo and Xiaomi. The patent protects a radio communication device and response-signal spreading method. It is not yet known which local division is responsible for the latter.

According to JUVE Patent research, there are twelve UPC lawsuits in total: three suits against each mobile phone manufacturer at each of the local divisions in Mannheim and Munich.

All four patents-in-suit so far were filed by German IP firm Grünecker.

Update 18.8.23: All 12 of Panansonic’s UPC lawsuits against Oppo and Xiaomi have now come to light. The Japanese company field three suits against each mobile phone manufacturer at each of the local divisions in Mannheim and Munich.

Local division Mannheim:
Judges: Peter Tochtermann, Edger Brinkman, Dirk Böttcher, Klaus Loibner, Michael Fleuchaus

EP 315 against Oppo and Xiaomi (case ID: ACT_545606/2023)

EP 724 against Oppo and Xiaomi (case IDs: ACT_545551/2023 and ACT_545615/2023)

EP 270 against Oppo and Xiaomi (case ID: ACT_545770/2023)

Local division Munich
Judges: Tobias Pichlmaier, Andras Kupecz and Matthias Zigann, Kerstin Roselinger

EP 163 against Oppo and Xiaomi (case IDs: ACT_545619/2023 and ACT_545620/2023)

EP 854 against Oppo and Xiaomi (case IDs: ACT_546122/2023 and ACT_546092/2023)

EP 132 against Oppo and Xiaomi

JUVE Patent updated this news on 18.08.2023 and on 15.07.2025.