Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, ORD_7585/2024, 22 February 2024)
| Date | 22 February 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic Order |
| Registry reference | ORD_7585/2024 |
| Parties | Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi C… |
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 22 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_223/2023), the Mannheim Local Division, in Panasonic Holdings Corporation’s infringement action on EP 2 207 270 against Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH and five other companies, decided to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation itself, before the written procedure had closed. The order is short, but it shows Mannheim’s practice of settling the Article 33(3) UPCA option early in order to secure the prompt allocation of a technically qualified judge.
Question
May the local division decide how to deal with the counterclaim for revocation before the written procedure has closed, and should it keep the whole dispute?
Decision
The division notes that Rule 37.1 RoP requires a decision as soon as practicable after the closure of the written procedure, but that Rule 37.2 RoP allows an earlier decision once the parties have been heard. The parties had raised no objection. An early decision was justified because the court is still in its early days and some judges sit part-time or case by case, so a technically qualified judge should be allocated early. On the option itself, hearing infringement, revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND licence together was considered sensible on efficiency grounds and allows the same panel to construe the patent uniformly. The judge-rapporteur is to ask the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate a technically qualified judge.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a defendant seeking referral of its revocation counterclaim to the central division should say so at the first scheduling exchanges, since the division may settle the Article 33(3) option before the written procedure ends.
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).
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 Technology Netherlands B.V.32 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 Technology Italy S.R.L6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantXiaomi CFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic Order
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La division locale de Mannheim décide, avant la clôture de la procédure écrite et sans objection des parties, d'instruire ensemble l'action en contrefaçon et la demande reconventionnelle en nullité, et fait demander l'affectation d'un juge technicien.
- 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 2 207 270mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 207 270Wireless communication base station apparatus, and wireless communication mobile station apparatus and control channel allocation method recorded proprietor: Panasonic Corp | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Xiaomi Technology Germany v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 30 September 2024 · Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 24 · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, 10 September 2024 · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CoA, 6 August 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi H.K. (CFI, ORD_44656/2024, 31 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_25608/2024, 6 May 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, ORD_14603/2024, 3 · Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 22 February 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 |
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.