Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, 4 February 2025)
| Date | 4 February 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Withdrawal (RoP265) |
| Registry reference | App_67930/2024 · ORD_68911/2024 |
| Parties | Panasonic Holdings Corporation |
Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.
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.
English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.
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
- claimantPanasonic Holdings Corporation47 decisions in the corpusFollow 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
- Withdrawal (RoP265)
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Après transaction, la division locale de Mannheim admet le désistement de l'action et de la demande reconventionnelle, laisse à chaque partie ses frais et limite le remboursement des taxes à 40 %.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 069 315mentioned 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 An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.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 3 069 315 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) | 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.