Advanced Standard Communication v XIAOMI (CFI, UPC_CFI_398/2025, 19 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 19 May 2026, issued in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_617/2024 and UPC_CFI_1321/2025 (infringement actions) and UPC_CFI_398/2025 and UPC_CFI_1340/2026 (counterclaims for revocation), the Munich Local Division decided to hear together the four cases between Advanced Standard Communication LLC and four XIAOMI companies concerning EP 3 016 464, asserted first in relation to the 4G standard and then, in a second action, the 5G standard. The division gave the risk of inconsistent decisions priority over speed, although the one-year target had already been exceeded in the first case.

Question

Should two infringement actions based on the same patent and between the same parties be joined, together with their counterclaims, where the first is already ready for decision?

Decision

Hearing each action together with its counterclaim rests on Art. 33(3) UPCA and Rule 37.2: it serves efficiency and allows the same judges to decide validity and infringement on a uniform construction of the claims (paragraphs 5 to 7). The joinder of the two infringement actions is based on Rule 302.3 (paragraph 8). Infringement proceedings should conclude within one year, which had been exceeded in the first case (paragraph 9), but avoiding inconsistent decisions (Rule 340.1) prevailed: same patent, same parties, same products and overlapping issues of claim construction, infringement and validity. The longer duration was secondary since the claimant itself had asked for the joint hearing (paragraph 10). The defendants suffered no procedural prejudice (paragraph 11). The claimant was directed to file its Reply and its Defence to the Counterclaim in cases 1321/2025 and 1340/2026.

Key points for practice

• Exceeding the one-year target does not prevent the joinder of two actions on the same patent where the risk of inconsistent decisions is real and the patentee itself seeks the joint hearing (paragraphs 9 and 10).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(3)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 37.2, 37.3, 302.3 and 340.1

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.