Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, 16 September 2024)
| Date | 16 September 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Registry reference | ACT_545615/2023 · ORD_598442/2023 |
| Parties | Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., X… |
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 16 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_219/2023), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division organised the oral hearing in Panasonic’s infringement action against four Xiaomi companies, Odiporo and Shamrock Mobile concerning EP 2 568 724, and set the value in dispute at EUR 8 million. The order is organisational. It is of interest for the reassessment of the value stated in the statement of claim and for the rule on publicity laid down for the FRAND debate.
Question
How should the hearing be organised, in coordination with the parallel case UPC_CFI_210/2023 against OPPO, and what value in dispute should apply?
Decision
The two cases are heard together on technical issues without being joined: a uniform construction of the patent for validity and infringement, then validity, with infringement through the standard dealt with last. FRAND is handled separately, on the Wednesday for this case. The abstract competition law discussion will be public. The public is excluded only where matters covered by the orders made under Rule 262A are concerned, and that question is then considered in closed session. By 27 September 2024 the parties must name the participants, send any graphics, state their language for each issue and file a preliminary cost estimate (Rule 104(k)). The value in dispute is set at EUR 8 million under Rule 370.6, since the stated value appears low given the territories asserted (Germany, France, Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands).
Key points for practice
- The division may raise of its own motion the value in dispute stated by the claimant, by reference to the territorial reach of the claims.
- The FRAND debate remains public in its abstract dimension. Only matters protected under Rule 262A justify a closed session.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 104, 262A and 370.6
Related decisions
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: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents, Patent infringement action.
Dhenne Avocats blog: FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).
Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.
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
- defendantXiaomi Inc.28 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantBeijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd.8 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantXiaomi Technology Germany GmbH29 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantPanasonic Holdings Corporation47 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantXiaomi H.K. Limited3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantXFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La division locale de Mannheim organise l'audience, technique puis FRAND, en coordination avec l'affaire OPPO, et fixe la valeur du litige à 8 millions d'euros au regard des territoires visés.
- 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 2 568 724mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 16 September 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
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.