Key takeaways
The deadline for submitting a Rejoinder to the Reply only runs from the time at which defendants have been served with a completely unredacted Reply to the Statement of defence.
Defendants have the right to defend themselves comprehensively, uniformly and in full knowledge of all the Claimant’s submissions in the Reply to the Statement of defence and by exhausting the deadlines provided for by the Rules of Procedure.
If there is a partially redacted Reply to the Statement of defence, defendants are not required to first defend themselves partially against the unredacted part.
Defendants shall not be forced to submit applications for time extension with an uncertain outcome.
This does not affect the running of the deadline for filing pleadings relating to the Counterclaim for revocation and relating to the (auxiliary) Application to amend the patent.
The attack on validity is legally independent of the FRAND defence.
Redactions to this defence generally have no effect on the validity dispute.
The resulting divergence of deadlines in the infringement dispute and the validity dispute is not disadvantageous, but rather appropriate in order not to shorten the preparation time for the usually highly complex technical issues.
Rule 29(d) RoP does not preclude this.
Division
Local Division Munich
UPC number
UPC_CFI_220/2023
Type of proceedings
Main proceedings
Parties
Defendants and Respondents: Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
Appellant: Panasonic Holdings Corporation
Patent(s)
EP 3 024 163
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 9.2 RoP, Rule 29(d) RoP, Rule 262A RoP
Accordion Heading
Content 1
