AX Wireless v Xiaomi (CFI, UPC_CFI_676/2025, 8 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 22 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 8 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_676/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division, on an application by AX Wireless, LLC under Rule 336 RoP in its infringement action on EP 3 072 324 against four Xiaomi group companies, disregards part of Section A of the defendants’ Rejoinder of 13 July 2026 on the Defence to the Application to Amend and, on the defendants’ objection, the claimant’s late exhibits AMPER CC 5 and AMPER CC 6, and dismisses the remaining requests.

Question

To what extent may a rejoinder contain new arguments, and may an exhibit cited in an earlier pleading be filed for the first time with a later one?

Decision

On 12 June 2026 the claimant filed its Rejoinder in the counterclaim for revocation and its Reply to the Defence to the Application to Amend, to which the defendants responded with a Rejoinder of 13 July 2026. On 20 August 2026 the claimant asked the court to disregard several sections of that Rejoinder. Under Rules 29(e) and 32.3 RoP, a rejoinder is limited to the matters raised in the reply (para. 13). New arguments, facts and documents may be raised insofar as they respond to it (para. 15, citing Paris Central Division, 28 February 2025, NJOY v Juul Labs, and 20 October 2025, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences), but a rejoinder cannot introduce new grounds against the validity of the granted patent, and a party needing a further exchange must obtain leave under Rule 36 RoP (para. 17). The Court of Appeal grounded these principles in the front-loaded system (para. 16, VMR Products v NJOY, 29 December 2025). Paragraphs 5 to 7 and 9 to 13 of Section A, which do not address the Reply to the Defence to the Application to Amend, are disregarded, while paragraphs 1 to 4 and 8, which address the Rule 9.2 objection and the Rule 36 request, are admitted (para. 20). Sections B.I, C and E are admitted, as they raise no new ground of invalidity and explain why the attacks already on file remain relevant to Auxiliary Request A1, which leaves feature 1.4 unchanged (para. 21). Exhibits AMPER CC 5 and AMPER CC 6, cited in the Defence to the Counterclaim but filed only with the Rejoinder of 12 June 2026 without an acceptable explanation, are disregarded under Rule 9.2 RoP (para. 24). Paragraphs 8 to 28 of the claimant’s Rejoinder, which do not depend on those exhibits, are admitted (para. 25). No further written submissions are needed and the parties may address the matter at the hearing (para. 26). The order may be reviewed under Rule 333 RoP.

Key points for practice

• A rejoinder may develop new arguments, facts and documents in response to the reply, but cannot introduce new grounds of invalidity against the granted patent without leave under Rule 36 RoP.
• An exhibit cited in a pleading but filed only with a later one is disregarded absent an acceptable explanation, while arguments not dependent on it remain in the debate.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 29(e), 32.3, 36, 52, 333 and 336 RoP

Related decisions

• AX Wireless v Xiaomi, 17 October 2025, same proceedings (UPC_CFI_676/2025), alignment of the four Xiaomi defendants’ time limits.
• AX Wireless v Xiaomi, 8 October 2026, case management order in action UPC_CFI_746/2025 (EP 3 182 635).
• AX Wireless v Xiaomi, 12 October 2026, joint order in both actions setting the value of the dispute and the hearing.
• AX Wireless v Xiaomi, 8 October 2026, order on the refund of the counterclaim fee.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 22 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.