Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Technology Netherlands (CoA, 8 January 2025)
| Date | 8 January 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Application Rop313 |
| Registry reference | App_67902/2024 · ORD_68032/2024 |
| Parties | MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters) |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By an order of 8 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_621/2024), the Court of Appeal (panel 1a) granted MediaTek leave to intervene in support of Xiaomi in Daedalus Prime’s appeal against a Hamburg Local Division order on access by its US attorneys to confidential information (Rule 262A, EP 2792100). The passages at issue, filed by Xiaomi, describe the architecture of MediaTek processors. The order recognises a supplier’s own interest in protecting its secrets, even when a third party put them before the court.
Question
Does a component maker whose architecture is described in confidential material filed by the defendant have an interest in intervening, and is its late application admissible?
Decision
Intervention requires a direct and present interest in the grant of the order sought by the supported party (paragraph 12, citing the Court of Appeal, 10 January 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023). MediaTek has such an interest in the confidentiality of information on its own processors, even though Xiaomi filed it (paragraph 13). Whether the US attorneys already have access in parallel US proceedings goes to the merits of the appeal (paragraph 14), and MediaTek’s recent appearance in the infringement action is no waiver (paragraph 15). Intervention after the close of the written procedure is admissible under Rule 313.2, as MediaTek will file no statement and only attend the hearing, causing no delay (paragraph 16). MediaTek and Xiaomi must coordinate their oral submissions (paragraph 20).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a supplier whose technical secrets appear in a customer-defendant’s filings may intervene in the confidentiality dispute, even late if it confines itself to the hearing.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 262A, 313.1, 313.2, 315.1 to 315.3 and 333
- Case law cited
- Ocado Innovation v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 January 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023)
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.
Going further
Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.
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
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
Parties
- claimantMediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application Rop313
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La cour d'appel admet l'intervention de MediaTek au soutien de Xiaomi et enjoint aux deux parties de coordonner leurs interventions à l'audience.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 2 792 100mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Ocado Innovation v Autostore (CoA, 10 January 2024) cited in this record
- Valeo Electrification v SEG Automotive Germany (CFI, 26 June 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 792 100Method and device for secure communications over a network using a hardware security engine recorded proprietor: Intel Corp | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Daedalus Prime v MediaTek (Headquarters) (CFI, 17 March 2025) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 16 January 2025) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi (CFI, 19 November 2024) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Technology Netherlands (CFI, 11 October 2024) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi (CoA, 6 August 2024) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Technology Netherlands (CFI, 25 July 2024) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 4 June 2024) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 1 May 2024) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.