Short Summary
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2568724 in proceedings between Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and multiple Xiaomi group entities as defendants. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court to order that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, together with a FRAND-related counterclaim under Article 33(3)(a), be heard jointly. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's nascent operational situation.
Detailed Summary
This is a procedural order (Anordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim on 22 February 2024 in case UPC_CFI_219/2023, concerning European Patent EP 2568724. The plaintiff is Panasonic Holdings Corporation, represented by Christopher Weber. The defendants include Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Inc., and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., all represented by Dr. Corin Gittinger. The panel consisted of Presiding and Reporting Judge Dr. Tochtermann, legally qualified Judge Dr. Kircher, and legally qualified Judge Brinkman. The language of proceedings was German.
The subject of the order was Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. The court noted that the parties had raised no objections to this approach when coordinating scheduling, allowing the question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) to be decided before the close of written proceedings.
The panel exercised its discretion, after hearing the parties, to order that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, together with the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license under Article 33(3)(a), be heard jointly. The court reasoned that joint hearing of the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim was sensible for reasons of efficiency and was also substantively advantageous, as it would allow decisions on both the validity and infringement questions to be based on a uniform interpretation by the same panel in the same composition. No considerations were apparent that would speak against such joint hearing.
The court further addressed the timing of the decision. While Rule 37.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides that the panel should decide on the approach under Article 33(3) as soon as possible after the close of written proceedings, Rule 37.2 permits an earlier decision if the panel considers the parties' submissions and grants them the right to be heard. The court found such an early decision justified and warranted given the current situation of the court, which was in its early stages. Since some members of the panel were employed only on a part-time or case-by-case basis, it was deemed appropriate from the perspective of procedural economy to obtain the assignment of the technically qualified judge at an early stage.
The operative part of the order directed that the Local Chamber would hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The judge-rapporteur was instructed to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel. The order was signed by all three judges in Mannheim on 22 February 2024.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Panasonic Holdings Corporation vs Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S. & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ona Patents SLvsGoogle Ireland Limited o.a.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, in which the Claimant Ona Patents SL sought review of a case management order regarding the scheduling of an interim conference. The Claimant argued that an interim conference was needed to discuss the relevance of arguments from related proceedings against other defendants that had been settled. The court dismissed the request as admissible but unfounded, holding that the decision to hold an interim conference lies within the discretion of the Presiding Judge and that the terminated parallel proceedings are legally independent of the present case.
Daedalus Prime LLCvsXiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH regarding EP2792100. The Xiaomi defendants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation, citing the need to obtain technical information from MediaTek under restrictive confidentiality obligations. The court rejected the request, finding that the defendants had not demonstrated exceptional reasons justifying an extension beyond the already adequate time limits provided under the Rules of Procedure.
Valeo Systemes d'EssuyagevsRobert Bosch France SAS and Others
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an appeal by Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage against an order of the Central Division (Paris section). The Paris CD had granted a preliminary objection filed by four Bosch entities, transferring the infringement action concerning EP 2671766 to the Düsseldorf local division and setting English as the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal's judge-rapporteur raised the question of the admissibility of Valeo's appeal and invited the Bosch respondents to submit comments within seven days on this issue.
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL and Apple Inc. (intervener)
This appeal concerned the scope of confidentiality protection measures under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in patent infringement proceedings involving FRAND licence determinations. The Court of Appeal addressed whether Vivo's employees and internal support staff should have access to highly confidential information (HCI) including comparable licence agreements, and modified the first instance orders to include internal support staff while maintaining access for named employees subject to restrictions on their involvement in licensing negotiations.
Canon Kabushiki KaishavsKatun Germany GmbH & Others
This is an interim conference order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, which relates to a developer supply container for a developer receiving apparatus. The order addresses various procedural matters in preparation for the oral hearing, including translations, feature breakdowns of the patent claims, deadlines for submissions, and the course of the oral hearing. The Defendants agreed to drop their contestation of service on Defendant 3, and the Court set deadlines for translations and cost estimates by 18 December 2025.
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.