Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_39924/2024, 4 July 2024)

Date	4 July 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_33754/2024 · ORD_39924/2024
Parties	Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technolo…

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 4 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_220/2023, ACT_545619/2023), the Munich Local Division held, in Panasonic’s action against Xiaomi Inc. and nine other group companies for infringement of EP 3 024 163, that the period for the rejoinder runs only from service on the defendants of a fully unredacted reply. The periods for the counterclaims for revocation and the application to amend the patent are not affected, and the extension sought was refused.

Question

Does filing a reply whose supposedly unredacted version contains numerous redactions postpone the start of all the defendants’ time limits?

Decision

Only in part. The redactions on pages 142 to 167 of the reply were held impermissible, as set out in an order of the same day (APP_21945/2024). As the issue arose before the UPC for the first time, the Division exceptionally allowed the rejoinder period to run from service of a complete reply, so that the defendants can respond uniformly with knowledge of the whole. The periods for the counterclaim and the application to amend rest on the revocation attack, which is legally independent of the competition law compulsory licence defence. Rule 29(d) RoP does not preclude separate time limits. The extension was refused, as it would shorten the time available to prepare highly complex technical issues.

Key points for practice

Practical point: redacting the full version of a pleading filed under confidentiality protection may result in the opponent’s time to respond being postponed.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.2 and 29(d)
Case law cited: Mannheim Local Division, 13 June 2024, UPC_CFI_219/2023, Munich Local Division, same day, APP_21945/2024.

Related decisions

Panasonic v Xiaomi, June 2024, final confidentiality order (Rule 262A RoP).

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantBeijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd.8 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantXiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.21 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantXiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.32 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantOdiporo GmbH5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantXiaomi TechnoloFollow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le délai de duplique ne court qu'à compter de la signification d'une réplique entièrement non caviardée. Les délais de la demande reconventionnelle et de la modification du brevet restent inchangés.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 024 163 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_18301/2024, 4 July 2024) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 024 163` Radio communication device and constellation control method recorded proprietor: Panasonic Corp	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, OR · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, 26 September 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 2 · Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 10 · Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm v Panasonic (CFI, 6 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_26378/2024, 4 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_18301/2024, 4 July 2024) · Panasonic v Xiaomi (CFI, 4 December 2023)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.