Opens in a new tab

Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Technology Netherlands (CoA, 8 January 2025)

Date8 January 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionApplication Rop313
Registry referenceApp_67902/2024 · ORD_68032/2024
PartiesMediaTek 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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
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

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.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 792 100
Method 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.