Xiaomi Technology Germany v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 30 September 2024)
| Date | 30 September 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) |
| Registry reference | APL_52763/2024 · ORD_53866/2024 |
| Parties | Xiaomi 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.
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
- Discretionary review under Rule 220.3 does not allow the length of an extension of time to be reopened, absent a misapplication of the Rules or an excess of discretion (paragraphs 1 and 2).
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
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
Parties
- claimantXia4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantXiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.32 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantXiaomi Technology Germany GmbH29 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantXiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantShamrock Mobile GmbH6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantOdiporo GmbH5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 3 096 315mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 2 568 724mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 2 207 270mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 3 September 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.