Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, 10 September 2024)

Date	10 September 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Application Rop 333
Registry reference	App_45837/2024 · ORD_47201/2024
Parties	Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology…

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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 9 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_219/2023 and UPC_CFI_223/2023, App_45837/2024 and App_45833/2024), the panel of the Mannheim Local Division (P. Tochtermann, presiding, D. Böttcher, E. Brinkman, K. Loibner) dismissed the application by Xiaomi Technology Germany and other defendants under Rule 333 RoP for review of the judge-rapporteur’s order of 25 July 2024, and refused the further time limit sought until 12 September 2024 to supplement their rejoinder on the FRAND part of Panasonic’s reply, in the actions concerning EP 2 568 724 and EP 2 207 270.

Question

Does the time limit for responding to confidential submissions run only from access to their unredacted version?

Decision

No. The panel agrees with the judge-rapporteur: time does not start afresh on receipt of the full version, since delayed access is addressed by an appropriate extension, and it expressly departs from the Munich Local Division’s order of 4 July 2024 (section 1). An extension should in principle compensate for the period without full access, but the two-month period under Rule 29(d) RoP covers the whole rejoinder and the reply to the counterclaim, whose technical parts were available early. The defendants already knew the negotiation history and the three comparable licences from parallel national proceedings, and the involvement of experts does not by itself justify the length requested. A further extension would also endanger the hearing date (section 2). Leave to appeal is refused (section 4).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a party receiving confidential FRAND material late must justify the length of the extension it seeks on the basis of its own circumstances, and cannot claim a fresh full period running from access.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 29(d), 262A, 333 and 335
Case law cited: Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen, Court of Appeal, 13 October 2023 (UPC_CoA_320/2023), FUJIFILM, Düsseldorf Local Division, 4 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_355/2023), Munich Local Division, 4 July 2024, UPC_CFI_220/2023

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (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

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantXiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.32 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantXiaomi Technology Germany GmbH29 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantShamrock Mobile GmbH6 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantXiaomi Technology France S.A.S8 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantXiaomi Technology3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Application Rop 333
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La formation rejette le réexamen de l'ordonnance du juge rapporteur et refuse un délai supplémentaire pour compléter la duplique sur la partie FRAND, le délai ne recommençant pas à courir à compter de l'accès aux pièces non occultées.
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 2 568 724 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 2 207 270 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 4 April 2024) cited in this record
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen (CoA, 13 October 2023) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 568 724` Radio Communication Device and Radio Communication Method recorded proprietor: Panasonic Intellectual Property Corp of America	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 25 other decision(s): Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_210/2023, 6 F · Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 22 · AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten v Panasonic Holdings (CFI, · Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 3 · Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 22 November 2024) · Xiaomi Technology Germany v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 30 September 2024 · Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 24 · Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 17 September 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
`EP 2 207 270` Wireless 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 (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 Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, ORD_7585/2024, 22 · 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

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.