Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 30 December 2024)

Date	30 December 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Hamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_62431/2024 · ORD_63489/2024
Parties	Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.

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 an order of 30 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_173/2024 and UPC_CFI_424/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division (Judge Schilling) declined to rule during the written procedure on the admissibility of Nera Innovations’ auxiliary requests to amend EP 2 642 632, and of the related amendments to its claims. The Xiaomi defendants had sought their early rejection. The point is left to the panel, at the oral hearing or in the final decision. The order confirms that a party cannot obtain, by a side application, an early review of the revocation counterclaim.

Question

Must the judge-rapporteur decide, by a preliminary ruling under Rule 334(h), the substantive admissibility of a conditional application to amend the patent (Rule 30) and of the claim amendments that depend on it (Rule 263)?

Decision

No. The matter falls within the discretionary power of case management (paragraph 1). A conditional amendment of the patent is subject only to the substantive requirements of Rule 30.1(b), not to leave of the court. As long as these are met, the dependent amendment of the claims cannot be refused (paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b)). Procedural economy does not require such broad substantive questions to be decided in advance, which would amount to reviewing the whole revocation counterclaim (paragraph 2(c)). The defendants may respond in their reply (paragraph 3).

Key points for practice

Practical point: objections to auxiliary requests belong in the pleadings on the counterclaim, an application for early rejection is unlikely to succeed.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 30.1, 263, 332 and 334
Case law cited: Court of Appeal, order of 3 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_188/2024), Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_265/2024)

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

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

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: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge rapporteur rejette la demande de rejet anticipé et renvoie à la formation de jugement la recevabilité des modifications subsidiaires du brevet et des demandes.
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 2 642 632 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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 2 642 632`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 10 July 2025) · Xiaomi v Nera Innovations (CoA, 3 August 2026) · Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 30 June 2026) · Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 28 April 2025) · Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 6 August 2024) · Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 4 June 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.