Short Summary
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP3024163. The defendants filed a stay application based on a parallel UK High Court action seeking determination of FRAND license terms. The presiding judge referred the stay application to the full panel for decision, proposing that the matter be addressed during or after already scheduled oral hearings concerning related patents.
Detailed Summary
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action (ACT_545619/2023) against ten defendants, including Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., several Xiaomi Technology national subsidiaries in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, and Shamrock Mobile GmbH. The action concerned European Patent EP3024163. Panasonic was represented by Sören Dahm of Kather Augenstein, while the defendants were represented by Henrik Lehment of Hogan Lovells. The defendants also filed counterclaims for revocation (CC_3450/2024 through CC_3470/2024).
The defendants filed an application (APP_31889/2024) seeking to stay the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(l) and/or Rule 295(m) of the Rules of Procedure. The basis for the requested stay was a parallel action pending before the UK High Court of Justice (Case No. HP-2023-000025), which concerned the determination of the final terms of a FRAND license agreement. The plaintiff, Panasonic, opposed the application and requested its rejection.
The presiding judge, Dr. Matthias Zigann, acting as the rapporteur, determined under Rule 102.1 of the Rules of Procedure that the matter should be referred to the full panel for decision. The rapporteur reasoned that the handling of stay possibilities in the context of a parallel pending action for the determination of a FRAND license required a decision by the panel. In the rapporteur's view, such a decision could best be made after an oral hearing. Considering that oral hearings were already scheduled for the end of November 2024 (concerning EP 132) and the end of January 2025 (concerning EP 163), the rapporteur found it procedurally economical to decide on the stay application during or following these already scheduled hearings.
The rapporteur referred the matter to the panel and proposed that the panel render its decision on the stay application during the scheduled oral hearings or thereafter. Unless the panel issued different directions, the previously communicated hearing dates remained in effect. The rapporteur also noted that, since a decision during or after the EP 132 hearing was being considered, no separate oral hearing in the case management system (CMS) was scheduled for EP 163. The order was issued as ORD_39681/2024. Under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure, any party could request review of this order by the panel, and pursuant to Rule 102.2, the order remained effective until such review.
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 Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbHvsSioen NV
This is an infringement action before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 186 428 B2, titled 'Tissue design for protective clothing,' which relates to a fabric structure for protective clothing for emergency forces. TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH, an Austrian manufacturer of firefighting clothing and exclusive licensee of the patent, alleged that Sioen NV, a Belgian company, infringed the patent in Latvia through its '868 – Twin/AS' product and in Portugal through its 'NOMEX SIOEN modelo RSB LX' product. The Court found infringement and granted TEXPORT's claims for a declaration of infringement, injunction, damages, information, recall, destruction, and legal costs, while dismissing all other requests.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing LimitedvsDISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The Aylo companies (AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYLO Freesites Ltd) sought review of a Local Division Mannheim order dated July 22, 2024, which had rejected their request to exclude three in-house counsel of the Dish and Sling companies from a confidentiality ring established under Rule 262A RoP. The Local Division found that the three US-based in-house counsel, who are patent attorneys admitted before the USPTO, were sufficiently reliable to be granted access to confidential information. The Aylo companies requested the Court of Appeal to admit the appeal against this order.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGEvsROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed appeals (UPC-CoA-4/2026 and UPC-CoA-13/2026) concerning the jurisdiction of the Central Division (Paris section) over an infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Robert Bosch entities, some domiciled in Contracting Member States and others outside. The Court of Appeal reversed the Central Division's orders that had declined jurisdiction and referred the case to the Düsseldorf Local Division, holding that Article 33(1), third
Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning Hurom's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for a further exchange of written pleadings in an appeal against a decision of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Hurom's infringement claims and revoked parts of EP 3 155 936. The court held the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that Hurom had waited two months after the Statement of Response and that the parties would have sufficient opportunity to address each other's positions at the oral hearing scheduled for 2 April 2026.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Biotech Distributor UK Ltd
This order concerns proceedings involving two divisional European patents (EP4066856 and EP4226941) owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Moderna entities. Both patents were revoked at the European Patent Office: EP941 by the Opposition Division on June 24, 2026, and EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal on July 20, 2026, both for lack of novelty. The Court disposed of the counterclaim action regarding EP856 as devoid of purpose, ordered GSK to bear Moderna's costs, and postponed its decision on whether to stay the remaining proceedings pending the written grounds of the TBA decision.
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.