Opens in a new tab

Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Netherlands (CoA, 12 February 2025)

Date12 February 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal RoP220.2
Registry referenceAPL_58177/2024 · ORD_68947/2024
PartiesDaedalus Prime LLC v. Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 19 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

Access by a person to highly confidential information is assessed in light of that person’s role in the proceedings before the Court, the relevance of the information to that role and the trust the person inspires (para. 12). Rule 262A.6 does not require the person granted access to be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Article 48 UPCA: such a requirement would unduly restrict the party’s freedom to choose who assists it (para. 13). Access is granted to two US attorneys whose technical expertise and knowledge of the acquisition of the patent exceeded that of the representatives before the Court (para. 16), the total number of persons with access remaining proportionate to that of the opposing party (para. 17), and their professional obligations guaranteeing their reliability (para. 18). The order under appeal is set aside.

Why it matters

This is the founding decision on the regime of access to highly confidential information before the Court. All later litigation on comparable licence agreements in FRAND matters derives from it: the Milan Local Division on 28 April 2025, then the Court of Appeal in Sun Patent Trust v Vivo and Ericsson v ASUSTeK on 26 January 2026.

Practical point

A request for access is built person by person, by demonstrating role, relevance and reliability. Being part of the party or registered as a representative is neither required nor disqualifying.

Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats. Only the official text of the decision is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal, Confidentiality club.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Appeal RoP220.2
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
L'accès d'une personne à une information hautement confidentielle s'apprécie au regard de son rôle dans la procédure devant la juridiction, de la pertinence de l'information pour l'exercice de ce rôle et de la confiance qu'elle inspire (§ 12). La règle 262A.6 n'exige pas que la personne à laquelle l'accès est ouvert soit un salarié d'une partie ni un représentant au sens de l'article 48 de l'accord : une telle exigence restreindrait indûment la liberté de la partie de choisir ceux qui l'assistent (§ 13). L'accès est accordé à deux avocats américains dont l'expertise technique et la connaissance de l'acquisition du brevet excédaient celle des représentants devant la juridiction (§ 16), le nombre total de personnes ayant accès demeurant proportionné au regard de celui de la partie adverse (§ 17), leurs obligations déontologiques garantissant leur fiabilité (§ 18). L'ordonnance attaquée est infirmée.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.