Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 4 June 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 4 June 2024 (UPC_CoA_183/2024), the Court of Appeal refused Daedalus Prime’s application to withdraw its appeal in relation to Xiaomi Technology Netherlands and Xiaomi Technology Germany only. The appeal is directed against the Hamburg Local Division’s order of 18 April 2024 refusing service of the statement of claim on three defendants (Xiaomi Communications, Xiaomi Inc. and MediaTek) through German branch offices (EP 2 792 100). The two companies, on which the appeal had been served and which had lodged a statement of response, opposed the withdrawal. The order clarifies the treatment of partial withdrawal on appeal, which Rule 265 RoP does not expressly address.

Question

May an appellant withdraw its appeal against some respondents only, against their will, while pursuing it against the others?

Decision

Rule 263.3 RoP does not apply, since it allows the unconditional limitation of a claim in an action (paragraph 12). Rule 265 RoP, drafted mainly for complete withdrawal, applies broadly, without distinguishing between first instance and appeal. Withdrawal is subject to the rights of the respondent and the proper conduct of the proceedings, and the Court has discretion after hearing the other party (paragraphs 15 and 16). A respondent served with the statement of appeal is brought into the appeal proceedings and has stronger rights (paragraph 18). Whether a partial withdrawal is allowed depends on the circumstances (paragraph 20). Xiaomi DE, a defendant at first instance, would be affected by a reversal of the order, and Xiaomi NL, which owns all the shares in Xiaomi DE, indirectly, since the outcome will influence the course and length of the proceedings (paragraphs 21 and 22). Permitting the withdrawal would deprive them of their right to be heard (paragraph 23).

Key points for practice

• Partial withdrawal of an appeal is not available as of right: once the statement of appeal has been served, respondents with a legitimate interest may insist on the appeal being decided as regards them (paragraphs 18 to 23).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 42(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 263.3 and 265

Other provisions

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47

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.