Key takeaways
Deadlines when Confidential Information are included
This decision clarifies that the deadline for a Defendant’s reply (in German “Duplik”) under Rule 29(d) RoP, when confidential information is involved, begins upon filing the initial Plaintiff’s reply, even if redacted.
The Court of Appeal, while acknowledging differing practices across Local Divisions, found no misinterpretation of the RoP by the Local Division in starting the deadline with the redacted submission.
The Court of Appeal, referencing Rule 220.4 RoP, upheld the Local Division’s approach of granting extensions to the already running deadline for the defendant to accommodate the subsequent submission of the unredacted reply.
Discretion of the Local Division
The Court of Appeal emphasized the Local Division’s discretion in managing procedural timelines, particularly concerning confidentiality.
he Court found no abuse of discretion in how the Local Division granted extensions, highlighting the lack of an absolute right to the full extension period when a redacted reply is initially filed.
Background of first instance proceedings
The crux of the matter lay in determining when the defendant’s deadline to reply (“Duplik” under Rule 29(d) RoP) begins when the plaintiff’s submissions contain confidential information requiring redactions and confidentiality orders. Xiaomi (Appellant) argued that the LD Mannheim erred by starting the Duplik deadline upon filing the redacted reply. They contended that the deadline should commence only after receiving the full, unredacted version, accompanied by a final confidentiality order under Rule 262A RoP, allowing for a proper substantive review.
This argument stemmed from the LD’s practice of granting extensions to an already running deadline when redacted submissions are later supplemented. This approach differed from other LDs (e.g., Hamburg and Munich), which initiate the deadline upon submission of the unredacted version, potentially leading to inconsistencies in applying the RoP.
The procedural history of the case unfolded as follows:
- 30 April and 17 May 2024: The Local Division ordered the submission of unredacted versions of Plaintiff’s reply.
- 13 June 2024: The Local Division granted a partial extension of the deadline for the non-technical aspects of the Defendant’s reply (“Duplik”).
- 25 July 2024: A further extension was granted, but not to the full extent requested by Defendant.
- 9 September 2024: The Local Division, citing Rule 333 RoP, upheld its previous decision partially denying the extension.
Xiaomi subsequently filed a request for review with the Court of Appeal under Rule 220.3 RoP.
Division
Court of Appeal Luxembourg
UPC number
UPC_CoA_543/2024, APL_52760/2024
UPC_CoA_544/2024, APL_52761/2024
UPC_CoA_545/2024, APL_52762/2024
Type of proceedings
Appeal against a procedural order
Parties
Appellants (Defendants in main proceedings): Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, and Shamrock Mobile GmbH
Respondent (Plaintiff in main proceedings): Panasonic Holdings Corporation
Patents
EP 3 096 315
EP 2 568 724
EP 2 207 220
Body of legislation / Rules
Rules 29(d), 220.3, 220.4, 262A, and 333.