Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, 13 June 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 13 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_219/2023, App_35009/2024 and App_35013/2024), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division, Dr Tochtermann, in Panasonic Holdings Corporation’s infringement action on EP 2 568 724 against Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH and other companies, granted only part of the extension of time sought by the defendants. The order reconciles the right to be heard with the confidentiality regime governing FRAND submissions.

Question

Does delayed access by the defendants to FRAND submissions covered by confidentiality applications justify extending all the time limits of the written procedure?

Decision

The defendants sought, in three parallel proceedings, an extension to 6 August 2024 for their rejoinder, their reply to the revocation counterclaim and their response to the application to amend the patent. The request was refused for the technical issues, infringement and validity, as the technical parts of the reply had been accessible unredacted. It was granted for the FRAND issues to safeguard the right to be heard: the defendants could only read those extensive and complex submissions well after the reply deadline, while access for further persons on their side remained in dispute. The time limit for responding to the FRAND submissions, including annexes containing comparable licence agreements, was extended to 19 July 2024. The judge reserved the possibility of confining the hearing of 7 to 10 October 2024 to technical issues. He directed the parties to file their main pleadings in a single coherent final version, as multiple versions each accompanied by confidentiality applications run counter to the duty to advance the proceedings.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: in a FRAND dispute, an extension linked to confidentiality is confined to the submissions to which access was delayed, technical time limits continue to run.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 29(d) and 262A

Case law cited

Düsseldorf Local Division, 4 April 2024, UPC_CFI_355/2023, Mannheim Local Division, 22 April 2024, UPC_CFI_365/2023

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.