Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, 10 July 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 10 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_219/2023, App_32822/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division (P. Tochtermann), on the application of Panasonic, claimant in the infringement action on EP 2 568 724 against Xiaomi, Odiporo and Shamrock Mobile, set the confidentiality regime for Panasonic’s licence agreements with third parties and the FRAND negotiations. On the defendants’ side, access is granted to the representatives in the Mannheim and Munich proceedings and to three named employees, but refused to the representatives in the parallel UK proceedings.

Question

How far does Rule 262A RoP protect information on licences and FRAND negotiations, and who on the defendants’ side may have access to it?

Decision

Negotiation facts already known to the defendants can only be protected by restricting their use. Abstract chronological facts may be made public, while the actual correspondence is protected (paragraph 1). One person is not enough, given the complexity of the FRAND dispute: three of the defendants’ employees are given access (paragraph 3). Departing from the Munich Local Division’s order of 4 July 2024, the judge refuses access for the representatives in the UK proceedings: foreign regimes are beyond the UPC’s control, the UK is not a party to the Agreement and penalty payments would be difficult to enforce there (paragraph 4). Coordination with the representatives before the Munich Local Division is allowed, use being limited to UPC proceedings (paragraph 5).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: in a FRAND dispute, access to third-party licences may extend to several employees and to representatives in related UPC proceedings, but not, under this order, to counsel in UK proceedings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 48

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 262 and 262A

Case law cited

Mannheim Local Division, 21 March 2024, UPC_CFI_359/2023, Fujifilm v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, UPC_CFI_355/2023, Munich Local Division, 4 July 2024, UPC_CFI_220/2023, ORD_26378/2024, AYLO FREESITES v DISH, Mannheim Local Division, 3 July 2024

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.