Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 4 June 2024)

Date	4 June 2024
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_31209/2024 · ORD_31569/2024
Parties	Nera Innovations Ltd.

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 4 June 2024 (UPC_CoA_205/2024, APL_24585/2024, App_31209/2024), the Court of Appeal rejected Nera Innovations Ltd’s request to withdraw its appeal in part, as against Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH. The appeal is directed at the Hamburg Local Division’s order of 24 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_173/2024) refusing service of the infringement claim on EP 2 642 632 on Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. via the German subsidiary.

Question

May an appellant withdraw its appeal against some respondents only, against their wishes, once the appeal and the statement of grounds have been served on them?

Decision

The Court left open whether Rule 305 RoP allows such a partial withdrawal (paragraph 10) and held Rule 263.3 RoP inapplicable (paragraph 11). Under Rule 265 RoP, withdrawal is refused where the other party has a legitimate interest in a decision (paragraphs 12 to 15). That interest carries more weight once the appeal and statement of grounds have been served, requiring the respondent to reply. The content of the impugned order, the effect of withdrawal on the respondent and its own view are relevant (paragraphs 17 to 19). Xiaomi DE, a defendant at first instance, had responded to the appeal and would be directly affected by setting aside the order, since service at its address would burden it with passing the document on to group companies. Xiaomi NL, its sole shareholder, is indirectly affected by the appeal’s impact on the length of the proceedings (paragraphs 20 and 21). Allowing withdrawal would deny them the right to be heard (paragraph 22).

Key points for practice

Practical point: once the appeal and statement of grounds have been served, the appellant cannot drop a respondent that has an interest in defending the impugned order, the scope of the appeal should be settled before service.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 222.2, 263.3, 265, 271.5(a) and 305

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.

First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_173/2024

Parties

claimantNera Innovations Ltd.9 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le désistement partiel de l'appel à l'égard de Xiaomi NL et Xiaomi DE est refusé, ces intimées ayant, après signification, un intérêt légitime à défendre l'ordonnance attaquée.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_173/2024).
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 642 632 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 642 632`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 10 July 2025) · Xiaomi v Nera Innovations (CoA, 3 August 2026) · Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 30 June 2026) · Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 28 April 2025) · Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 30 December 2024) · Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 6 August 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.