AX Wireless v Xiaomi (CFI, 8 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 22 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 8 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_746/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division, on an application by AX Wireless, LLC under Rules 336 and 9.2 RoP in its infringement action on EP 3 182 635 against four Xiaomi group companies, declares inadmissible Section 1.6 of the defendants’ Rejoinder of 13 July 2026 and two new objections it contained under Articles 123(3) and 83 EPC, dismisses the defendants’ request to reject parts of the claimant’s submissions as late filed, and dismisses the remaining requests.

Question

May a rejoinder raise new objections against auxiliary requests or open a new debate on expert reports, and on what conditions can a party have the other side’s submissions disregarded as late filed?

Decision

On 20 August 2026 the claimant asked the court to disregard several passages of the defendants’ Rejoinder of 13 July 2026. A rejoinder is limited to the matters raised in the reply (Rule 32.3 RoP, para. 8). In light of the Paris Central Division (28 February 2025, NJOY v Juul Labs, and 20 October 2025, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences, para. 10) and the Court of Appeal (29 December 2025, VMR Products v NJOY, para. 11), it may not alter the subject matter of the debate or introduce new independent objections or new grounds of invalidity (para. 12). The challenged passages of Sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5 stay within those limits (para. 15). Section 1.6, which reacts to the claimant’s Rejoinder on the defendants’ expert opinion and concerns the debate on expert evidence rather than the amendments themselves, required leave and is disregarded (paras 16 to 18). The objection under Article 123(3) EPC (mn. 30), never raised in the Defence to the Application to Amend, and the insufficiency objection against Auxiliary Requests 9 to 11 (mn. 193), which goes beyond earlier submissions, are late and run against the front-loaded system (para. 19). The added matter objection against Auxiliary Request 8 (mn. 183), a mere development of an existing argument, is admitted (paras 20 and 21), and the Article 84 EPC point (mn. 173) will be dealt with at the hearing (paras 22 and 23). The defendants’ request to reject the claimant’s submissions on « (separately) encoding a HE packet » as late filed is dismissed as unsubstantiated (para. 25), those submissions in any event falling within the scope of the claimant’s Rejoinder of 12 June 2026 (para. 26). No further written response from the claimant is needed (para. 27). The order may be reviewed under Rule 333 RoP.

Key points for practice

• Developing an argument already on file remains admissible in a rejoinder, whereas a new, independent objection to auxiliary requests that was not raised in the Defence to the Application to Amend is disregarded.
• A request to disregard the other side’s submissions as late filed must be substantiated in the pleading that makes it, and explanations offered only in response to a Rule 336 application do not suffice.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 32.3, 52, 333 and 336 RoP

EPC

Articles 83, 84 and 123(3) EPC

Related decisions

• AX Wireless v Xiaomi, 17 October 2025, parallel action between the same parties (UPC_CFI_676/2025, EP 3 072 324), alignment of time limits.
• 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, case management order in action UPC_CFI_676/2025 on late submissions and exhibits.
• 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.