Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Technology Netherlands (CFI, 25 July 2024)
| Date | 25 July 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_42733/2024 · ORD_43090/2024 |
| Parties | Xiaomi 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.
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
- Practical point: a defendant relying on a supplier’s confidential information should secure its protection under Rule 262A RoP within the time limit for the defence, rather than count on an extension.
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
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
- claimantXiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.32 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantXiaomi Technology Germany GmbH29 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 792 100mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 22 August 2023) cited in this record
- TCL Europe v Corning (CFI, 8 September 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 792 100Method 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 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 |
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.