Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_26378/2024, 4 July 2024)
| Date | 4 July 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Registry reference | App_21945/2024 · ORD_26378/2024 |
| Parties | Beijing 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.
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
- Practical point: an application under Rule 262A RoP must justify each measure sought, a destruction obligation or a minimum penalty will not be granted as a matter of course.
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
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
Parties
- claimantXiaomi Inc.28 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantBeijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd.8 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantXiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.32 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantXiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantXiaomi Technology3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 3 024 163mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm v Panasonic (CFI, 6 July 2024) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.