UPC_CFI_559/2025_Aug26 – Shangrao v Longi
- Court
- Local Division Munich
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Stay for settlement negotiations Facts Defendants 1-4 in this infringement action jointly ask suspension of the proceedings for settlement negotiations, and ask the Court to rule that if the case is resumed, the full term for a Preliminary Objection and Statement of Defence will run as of that date. With respect to defendant 5 (a customer) they ask for a stay. The JR Agrees and rules accordingly. Comment A very busy Division. So they are happy if the case settles! The more so as the language of the case is English, which is more time consuming than German (according to the Division!).
Full Decision Text
1 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 26 August 2025 CLAIMANT Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd, No. 3 Yingbin Avenue, Shangrao Economic and Technological Development Zone, 334100 Jiangxi Province, CN, represented by: Marco Scheffler, Gulde & Partner Patent und Rechtsanwaltskanzlei mbB, Berliner Freiheit 2, 10785 Berlin, DE. DEFENDANTS 1. LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Bockenheimer Landstr. 51-53, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, DE, 2. LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd, No.388 Hangtian Middle Road, Chang´an District, Shaanxi Province 710100, Xi´an City, CN, 3. Longi (Netherlands) Trading B. V., Boompjes Xb, 3011 40 Rotterdam, NL, 4. Energy3000 solar GmbH, Industriestraße V/1, 7052 Müllendorf, AT, 5. Thomas Seifert, Tubag Allee 6, 56642 Kruft, DE. Defendant 1-4 represented by: Dr. Benjamin Schröer, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Karl-Scharnagl-Ring 5, 80539 Munich, DE. PATENT AT ISSUE European patent no° EP 3 297 043 B1 PANEL/DIVISION Panel 2 of the Local Division Munich Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_559/2025 2 DECIDING JUDGE This Order has been issued by Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS Rule 295 (d), (m) RoP – Stay of the proceedings FACTS 1 The Claimant is suing the Defendants for infringing of the patent at issue. 2 In a letter dated 25 August 2025, the Claimant and Defendants 1) to 4) jointly requested that the proceedings be suspended due to settlement negotiations. They also requested that, should the proceedings resume, the full one-month deadline for a Preliminary objec- tion pursuant Rule 19.1 RoP runs afresh and, by the way of extension of the deadline pursuant Rule 23 RoP, a full five-month deadline for the Statement of defence, therewith the Counterclaim for revocation, runs afresh. 3 In Claimants` view regarding the Defendant 5) the proper administration of justice requires the stay of the infringement procedure because it is not clear yet whether the customers of the Defendants 1) to 4) – including Defendant 5) – will be part of the settlement agree- ment. REASONS 4 Due to the ongoing settlement negotiations and the joint application of the Claimant and Defendants 1) to 4), the proceedings are stayed under Rule 295(d) RoP. 5 The suspension of proceedings regarding Defendant 5) is based on Rule 295(m) RoP. Given the ongoing settlement negotiations between the other parties and the emails from Defendant 5) dated 16 July and 6 August 2025, it is also appropriate to suspend the pro- ceedings in this respect. The Court assumes that an (out-of-court) settlement is also being sought with Defendant 5). 6 The effect of suspending the proceedings on time limits is set out in Rule 296.3 RoP. Accordingly, the time limits begin to run afresh for the purpose of procedural periods from the date on which the stay of proceedings comes to an end. This consequence therefore arises from the law. It is not necessary in principle to state these effects in the operative part of the Order. 7 Additionally, the time limit for submitting a Statement of defence (and a Counterclaim for revocation) pursuant to Rule 23 RoP is extended to full five months in accordance with the unanimous request of the parties, pursuant to Rule 9.3 (a) RoP. To ensure that the time limits run concurrently for all Defendants in the event of proceedings being resumed, the time limit under Rule 23 RoP is also extended to five months for Defendant 5). 3 ORDER 1. The proceedings (ACT_29445/2025 UPC_CFI_559/2025) are stayed. 2. The time limit for filing a Statement of defence (Rule 23 RoP), is set at a total of five months. 3. The parties are required to inform the Court as soon as possible if a settlement of the dispute has been reached. DETAILS OF THE ORDER Order no. ORD_35509/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_29445/2025 UPC number: UPC_CFI_559/2025 Action type: Infringement Action Related proceeding no. Application No.: 35441/2025 Application Type: Generic procedural Application 26 August 2025
Key Holdings
- Proceedings suspended for settlement negotiations.
- Upon resumption, full terms for PO and Defence will restart.
Tags
- Case Management
- Settlement
- Stay of Proceedings