Opens in a new tab

Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Technology Netherlands (CFI, 25 July 2024)

Date25 July 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionHamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_42733/2024 · ORD_43090/2024
PartiesXiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH

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 25 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_169/2024, ACT_19012/2024, ORD_43090/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division (Schilling) rejected the application of Xiaomi Technology Netherlands and Xiaomi Technology Germany, defendants in Daedalus Prime’s infringement action on EP 2 792 100, for a two-week extension of the time limit for the Statement of Defence and any Counterclaim for revocation. The order confirms that the timetable of the written procedure cannot be stretched to accommodate exchanges with a supplier.

Question

Does the need to obtain technical information subject to confidentiality obligations from the chip manufacturer, MediaTek, justify an extension of the time limit for the defence under Rule 9.3(a) RoP?

Decision

No. The Rules of Procedure set a balanced timetable, and the Statement of Defence already has the longest period, three months. No convincing reason to depart from it was shown. Coordination with non-European suppliers is not enough, as the Hamburg Local Division already held on 22 August 2023, the time limit allows for international coordination and the calculation under Rule 271 RoP already gives the defendants a longer period. Confidentiality concerns can be addressed through the Rule 262A RoP procedure, run alongside the defence. Finally, the Counterclaim for revocation raises technical questions that are likely to be independent of that information.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 9.3(a), 12, 23, 29, 262A, 271.4(a), 271.6(b), 331.1 and 334(a)
Case law cited
Hamburg Local Division, 22 August 2023, UPC_CFI_54/2023

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), 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

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 refuse de proroger le délai du mémoire en défense et de la demande reconventionnelle en nullité, la coordination avec un fournisseur et la confidentialité de ses informations ne constituant pas une raison suffisante.
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

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 2 792 100
Method and device for secure communications over a network using a hardware security engine
recorded proprietor: Intel Corp
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Daedalus Prime v MediaTek (Headquarters) (CFI, 17 March 2025) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 16 January 2025) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Technology Netherlands (CoA, 8 January 2025) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi (CFI, 19 November 2024) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Technology Netherlands (CFI, 11 October 2024) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi (CoA, 6 August 2024) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 4 June 2024) · Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 1 May 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.