Opens in a new tab

Xiaomi Technology Germany v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 30 September 2024)

Date30 September 2024
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Registry referenceAPL_52763/2024 · ORD_53866/2024
PartiesXiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Xia…

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

In an order of 30 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_543/2024, UPC_CoA_544/2024 and UPC_CoA_545/2024), a standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejected the request for discretionary review lodged by six Xiaomi companies, defendants to three infringement actions brought by Panasonic before the Mannheim Local Division (EP 3 096 315, EP 2 568 724 and EP 2 207 270). On review under Rule 333, the Division’s panel had upheld the partial refusal of their request to extend the time for the rejoinder, prompted by restricted access to the third-party licences relied on in Panasonic’s reply, and refused leave to appeal. The order confirms that the length of an extension lies within the first-instance court’s discretion and that Rule 220.3 only reaches a misapplication or an excess of that discretion.

Question

Should the Court of Appeal, under Rule 220.3, grant leave to appeal against an order limiting the extension of the time for the rejoinder (Rule 29(d)), said to infringe the right to be heard?

Decision

The length of an extension granted in a given case is a matter for the Court’s discretion (grounds, paragraph 1). It was not apparent, nor had Xiaomi sufficiently shown, that the Mannheim Local Division misapplied the Rules of Procedure or exceeded that discretion, including with regard to the right to be heard (paragraph 2). There was no urgent need to grant the request on other grounds, having regard in particular to the stage of the first-instance proceedings (paragraph 3). The request was rejected (Rule 220.4).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 29(d), 220.3, 220.4, 262A and 333
Case law cited
No UPC decision is cited.

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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

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
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La cour d’appel rejette la demande de contrôle discrétionnaire de Xiaomi : la durée de la prorogation du délai de duplique relève de l’appréciation de la division locale de Mannheim, qui n’en a pas excédé les limites.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 096 315
Device and method for execution of huffman coding
recorded proprietor: Panasonic Intellectual Property Corp of America
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 24 · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi H.K. (CFI, ORD_44601/2024, 31 July 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 16 May 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi (CFI, ORD_25617/2024, 6 May 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, ORD_14581/2024, 3 · Panasonic v OROPE Germany (CFI, ORD_7587/2024, 22 February 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, ORD_7586/2024, 22 · Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 20
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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 2 568 724
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) · Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 24 · Panasonic Holdings v OROPE Germany (CFI, 17 September 2024) · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, 16 September 2024
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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): Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 24 · Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, 10 September 2024 · 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.