Short Summary
AX Wireless, LLC filed a patent infringement action against four Xiaomi entities before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3072324. The Defendants requested an extension and alignment of procedural deadlines for all four Defendants so that a consolidated defence could be filed, and the Claimant consented. The Court granted the request, aligning the deadlines for all Defendants.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Munich, on 17 October 2025, in case UPC_CFI_676/2025. The Claimant, AX Wireless, LLC, a company based in Austin, Texas, USA, represented by Hosea Haag of Ampersand Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB, brought proceedings against four Defendants: (1) Xiaomi Inc., (2) Xiaomi Corporation, both located in Beijing, China; (3) Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, based in Düsseldorf, Germany; and (4) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., based in The Hague, Netherlands. All four Defendants were represented by Henrik Lehment of Hogan Lovells International LLP. The patent at issue was European Patent No. EP3072324, and the proceedings were conducted in English. The deciding judge was Rute Lopes as Judge-rapporteur.
The object of the order was the extension and alignment of procedural deadlines. After accepting service on behalf of Defendants 1) and 2) (the Chinese entities), the Defendants requested, on behalf of Defendants 3) and 4) (who had been served earlier on 28 August), that the Court extend their deadlines to align with those of Defendants 1) and 2). The requested deadlines were: (i) Preliminary Objection by 10 November 2025; (ii) Observation to Preliminary Order on Confidentiality by 10 November 2025; and (iii) Statement of Defence, including Counterclaim for revocation, by 12 January 2026. The Defendants argued that these deadlines corresponded to the statutory deadlines applicable to Defendants 1) and 2) based on their date of service under the Hague Convention, and that aligning deadlines for all Defendants would benefit the efficiency of the case. The Claimant was heard and expressed its acceptance of the request.
In its reasoning, the Court acknowledged that the acceptance of service for Defendants 1) and 2), located in China, expedited the proceedings for those Defendants, whose date of service under the Hague Convention could not have been anticipated earlier. The Court relied on Rule 9.3(a) of the Rules of Procedure, which permits the extension of a time period on a reasoned request by a party. It held that such an extension should be granted where justified by the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity, without unduly compromising the principle of ensuring expeditious decisions. The Court found that, as a general rule, it is acceptable and even desirable for the parties and the Court that the case be treated uniformly and that all Defendants file a consolidated defence, noting that harmonisation of deadlines may result in significant efficiency in case management. Given that all Defendants share the same representative and that the Claimant concurred, the Court concluded that the alignment would permit more efficient and simpler case management without affecting the overall pace of the proceedings, and that the legal deadlines for Defendants 1) and 2) would in any case have to be respected.
Accordingly, the Court granted the request and ordered that the deadlines for all Defendants be aligned as follows: the Preliminary Objection and the Observation to the Preliminary Order on Confidentiality were both due on 10 November 2025, and the Statement of Defence, including any Counterclaim for revocation, was due on 12 January 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in AX Wireless, LLC vs 1) Xiaomi Inc. 2) Xiaomi Corporation 3) Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH 4) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.