Panasonic v Xiaomi (CFI, 4 December 2023)

Date	4 December 2023
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_213/2023;UPC_CFI_220/2023;UPC_CFI_224/2023
Registry reference	ORD_589352/2023 · UPC_CFI_213/2023 · UPC_CFI_220/2023 · UPC_CFI_224/2023
Parties	Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Xiaomi Inc. et al.

Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

27 November 2023 : Panasonic v Xiaomi (CFI, 27 November 2023) ORD_589559/2023 · UPC_CFI_213/2023 · UPC_CFI_220/2023 · UPC_CFI_224/2023

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

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

UPC_CFI_213/2023 official number
UPC_CFI_220/2023 official number
UPC_CFI_224/2023 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

claimantPanasonic Holdings Corporation47 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantXiaomi Inc. et al2 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

27 November 2023 Panasonic v Xiaomi (CFI, 27 November 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_213/2023, UPC_CFI_220/2023, UPC_CFI_224/2023
Au lieu de statuer sur la demande au titre de la règle 275.2, la division locale de Munich propose que les défenderesses acceptent la signification via leur filiale allemande en échange d'une prorogation du délai de défense au 31 janvier 2024.
4 December 2023 Panasonic v Xiaomi (CFI, 4 December 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_213/2023, UPC_CFI_220/2023, UPC_CFI_224/2023

What the record states

Nature of the act: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division locale de Munich entérine l'accord des parties : signification via la filiale allemande acceptée, délai de défense prorogé au 31 janvier 2024 pour les dix défenderesses, exceptions préliminaires communes examinées à l'audience.
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 2 197 132 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 3 024 163 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 2 584 854 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Panasonic v Xiaomi (CFI, 27 November 2023) cited in this record

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 2 197 132`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, OR · Panasonic v Xiaomi (CFI, 27 November 2023)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
`EP 3 024 163` Radio communication device and constellation control method recorded proprietor: Panasonic Corp	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, OR · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, 26 September 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 2 · Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 10 · Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm v Panasonic (CFI, 6 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_26378/2024, 4 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_18301/2024, 4 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_39924/2024, 4 July 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · 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
`EP 2 584 854`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Panasonic v Xiaomi (CFI, 27 November 2023)	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.