Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Technology Netherlands (CFI, 11 October 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 11 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_169/2024, ACT_19012/2024, ORD_51859/2024), the panel of the Hamburg Local Division (S. Klepsch, presiding, S. Schilling, rapporteur, P. Rinkinen, P. Rydman), on Daedalus Prime’s application under Rule 333 RoP, upheld the judge-rapporteur’s confidentiality orders, including the final order of 3 September 2024, which denied two of the claimant’s US attorneys access to passages of Xiaomi’s Statement of Defence and to an exhibit, in the infringement action on EP 2 792 100. Leave to appeal was granted.

Question

Should lawyers acting for the patentee in parallel US proceedings have access to information protected under Rule 262A RoP?

Decision

The application is admissible under Rule 333.1 RoP. The order is neither too broad nor too vague, and insufficient redaction is not a waiver of protection: Xiaomi may replace the redacted version of its Statement of Defence. On access, the panel weighs the interests under Art. 58 UPCA, Rule 262A.5 RoP and Directive 2016/943: US attorneys are bound by professional rules, but Xiaomi’s interest in confidentiality is high, the information is not on the US file and access could not be undone. Daedalus’s right to put its case is preserved through access for its UPC representatives and its managing director. The US situation differs from that of the UK, which is part of the system under Art. 48(2) UPCA. Finally, the order cannot cover future information in advance.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: access to confidential information for counsel in parallel US proceedings is not a given, as access for the UPC representatives and a managing director will in principle safeguard the right to be heard.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 48(2) and 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.1, 262A and 333.1

Other provisions

Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 9

Case law cited

Aylo Freesites v DISH, Mannheim Local Division, 3 July 2024, Aylo Premium, Mannheim Local Division, 22 July 2024, FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 27 March 2024, A. Menarini Diagnostics v Insulet, Milan Local Division, 4 September 2024, Munich Local Division, 4 July 2024, UPC_CFI_220/2023, Paris Local Division, 19 December 2023, UPC_CFI_230/2023

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.