Opens in a new tab

Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_26378/2024, 4 July 2024)

Date4 July 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication RoP262A
Registry referenceApp_21945/2024 · ORD_26378/2024
PartiesBeijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology …

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 an order of 4 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_220/2023, ACT_545619/2023, App_21945/2024), the judge-rapporteur of panel 1 of the Munich Local Division (M. Zigann), in Panasonic Holdings Corporation’s infringement action on EP 3 024 163 against Xiaomi Inc. and nine other companies, made final, with amendments, the provisional confidentiality order of 9 May 2024 covering the Reply and its FRAND annexes. The order clarifies what a Rule 262A RoP order may contain and when time for the Rejoinder starts to run.

Question

May a confidentiality order impose return or destruction of the information and a minimum penalty, and when does time for the Rejoinder run if the unredacted Reply served is incomplete?

Decision

The need for protection was not disputed and is accepted. The notion of representatives is clarified. The obligation to return or destroy the information is removed, as it has no basis in the Rules of Procedure and was not justified under Rule 262A.2 RoP. The minimum penalty was neither justified nor proportionate: the sanction becomes a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 for each culpable breach. The duplicative non-use obligation is deleted. By way of exception, the issue being new, time for the Rejoinder runs only from service of a fully unredacted Reply. The time limits for the counterclaim for revocation and the requests to amend the patent are unaffected, since the revocation attack is independent of the competition-law compulsory licence defence. The extension request (App_33754/2024) is decided by a separate order of the same day.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 9.2, 29(d) and 262A
Case law cited
Mannheim Local Division, 13 June 2024, UPC_CFI_219/2023

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: Confidentiality club.

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

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
Application RoP262A
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
L'ordonnance provisoire de confidentialité est confirmée sans obligation de destruction et avec une astreinte plafonnée à 100 000 euros par violation fautive. Le délai de duplique court à compter de la signification d'une réplique entièrement non occultée.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
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_18301/2024, 4 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_39924/2024, 4 July 2024) · Panasonic v Xiaomi (CFI, 4 December 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.