Executive Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural issue of partially withdrawing an appeal against multiple defendants in a patent infringement case. Nera Innovations sought to withdraw its appeal specifically against two EU-based Xiaomi entities (NL and DE), arguing they lacked legitimate interest due to prior service of process. The court rejected this request, emphasizing that even if some parties are not directly affected by the procedural change, their right to due process must be protected. This ruling reinforces the importance of considering all stakeholders' interests when managing complex multi-defendant litigation in the UPC.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal ruled that the partial withdrawal of an appeal concerning one or two out of several defendants must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the legitimate interests of the affected parties. In this instance, Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE had a legitimate interest in defending themselves regarding the application for service of process, meaning their right to due process was protected.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Nera Innovations Ltd. vs Xiaomi Communications Co, Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Life Sciences Private Ltd.; Meril GmbH; Meril Italy S.r.l.
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sought an extension of time to file its rejoinder in a revocation action concerning EP 4 151 181. The Court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while efficiency is important, it cannot override the fundamental principle of fair trial. This decision reinforces the UPC's cautious approach to granting procedural extensions, ensuring balance and fairness between parties.
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request for simultaneous interpretation in a complex infringement case involving Fujifilm and Kodak. The Mannheim Local Division ruled that while ensuring fair trial rights necessitates allowing the Claimant to use an interpreter, it firmly rejected the request for the Court to fund these services. The court clarified that since Japanese is not an official language of the division, the financial burden rests solely with the party requesting the interpretation.
Ona Patents SLvsGoogle Ireland Limited
In a request for security of legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled against Ona Patents SL. The court found that despite the Claimant's arguments regarding its solvency, it failed to provide sufficient financial evidence to convince the court. Consequently, the court ordered Ona Patents SL to deposit EUR 500,000 as security for the Defendants' potential legal costs. This decision highlights the stringent requirements placed on NPEs seeking enforcement in UPC proceedings.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KGvsCUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement and revocation action against CUPOWER for allegedly infringing its Boost-PFC circuit patent (EP 2 011 218 B1) used in LED drivers. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision underscores the high bar required to prove infringement or successfully challenge a granted European patent within the unified system.
Barco N.V.vsYealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
Barco N.V. sought provisional measures against Yealink entities regarding the European patent EP 3 732 827. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the application, finding that there was no sufficient urgency to warrant preliminary relief. While denying the injunction, the court clarified several important procedural matters, including its own territorial competence and the cumulative nature of requirements for granting provisional measures. This decision serves as a reminder to applicants that demonstrating immediate necessity is paramount in urgent UPC proceedings.
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.