Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_25608/2024, 6 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 6 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_223/2023, ORD_25608/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division (P. Tochtermann), in the infringement action on EP 2 207 270 brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against ten Xiaomi group companies, severed the proceedings against the four defendants based in China and Hong Kong, on whom the Statement of claim had not yet been served. The step allows the action to go ahead against the represented European defendants.

Question

Should the proceedings be severed as regards foreign defendants on whom service under the Hague Service Convention will take considerable time?

Decision

The judge found that defendant 3 held no authority to accept service for the other defendants and that service on it did not amount to service on defendants 1, 2, 7 and 8, which had already been refused under Rule 275.2 RoP (an appeal being pending in a parallel case). Until service is effective, there is no procedural relationship binding them. Severance under Rule 303.2 RoP was therefore appropriate: two new proceedings were opened (defendants 1, 2 and 8, in China, defendant 7, in Hong Kong), the value was provisionally set at EUR 1.2 million and EUR 400,000, and the claimant must pay the additional court fees. The judge reserved the possibility of deeming service effected if it is not completed within a reasonable time (Art. 15(2) Hague Service Convention).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: service on a European subsidiary is not service on the foreign parent, a claimant suing companies outside the EU should expect severance and additional court fees.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 275.2, 303.2 and 333

Hague Service Convention of 15 November 1965

Art. 15(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.