Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, 3 September 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 3 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_219/2023, App_49142/2024), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division (Tochtermann) disregarded the rejoinder submissions of Xiaomi Technology Germany and the other defendants concerning two third-party licences, in the action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation on EP 2 568 724. He also rejected the request for production of those licences against the former Hong Kong defendant, whose proceedings had been severed. The order penalises a late request for confidentiality and production made a few weeks before the oral hearing.

Question

May a party, at the rejoinder stage, make the production of third-party licences conditional on a stricter confidentiality regime than the one already in place, or on a production order against a group company?

Decision

No. A party that needs a production order against itself or a group company in order to file third-party licences must obtain it in time to meet the procedural deadlines, and conditional submissions make no difference. The defendants should have acted at the latest after the production orders of 30 April 2024, and they explained neither the delay nor why production was possible only from the Hong Kong company, where service had failed because the Hague Service Convention authorities refused it. Their submissions on the two licences remain disregarded (Rule 9.2 RoP) and the production request is rejected.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: confidentiality arrangements and production orders needed to file third-party licences should be sought as soon as the duty to produce is known, not at the end of the written procedure.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2 and 262A

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.