Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, ORD_7586/2024, 22 February 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 22 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_218/2023), the Mannheim Local Division (P. Tochtermann, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur, H. Kircher, E. Brinkman), in Panasonic Holdings Corporation’s infringement action on EP 3 096 315 against four European Xiaomi group companies, Odiporo GmbH and Shamrock Mobile GmbH, decided to hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, before the written procedure had closed. The order shows that the Article 33(3) UPCA option can be exercised very early, in particular to secure the prompt allocation of a technically qualified judge.

Question

May the local division exercise the Article 33(3) UPCA option before the end of the written procedure, and should it keep the counterclaim for revocation together with the counterclaim for a FRAND licence?

Decision

The panel exercised its discretion to hear the infringement action, the counterclaim for revocation and the FRAND counterclaim together: this is efficient, since the same panel decides validity and infringement on a single construction of the patent, and no contrary consideration was apparent. Rule 37.1 RoP provides for a decision as soon as practicable after the closure of the written procedure, but Rule 37.2 RoP allows an earlier decision if the parties’ arguments are taken into account and they are heard. The parties had raised no objection. An early decision was justified because the court is in its start-up phase and some judges sit part-time or case by case, so the technical judge should be allocated early. The judge-rapporteur was directed to ask the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate a technically qualified judge.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a defendant wishing the counterclaim for revocation to be referred to the central division should say so at the very first exchanges, as the division may decide on the option before the written procedure closes.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(3)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 37.1 and 37.2

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.