AX Wireless, LLC v. 1) Xiaomi Inc. 2) Xiaomi Corporation 3) Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH 4) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.

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.