UPC_CFI_1321/2025; UPC_CFI_1340/2026 – ASC v Xiaomi
- Court
- Local Division Munich
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Electronics/SEP
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Extension of deadline Facts 1. This decision relates to a claim for infringement and counterclaim for revocation. 2. The oral hearing was set for 11 December 2026. 3. The deadline for the claimant’s next pleadings expires on 22 June 2026. 4. The claimant asked for an extra two weeks. The defendant agreed on the condition that it also gets an two additional weeks for its next pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) 1. The Claimant raised as reason for the request that there are several other deadlines also in national proceedings. 2. The JR refused the extension, explaining that this would also result in a rather short period for preparation for the oral hearing. Comment 1. The JR is completely right. If we start on the path that parties can decide together to change the deadlines, then that will be the end of an efficient UPC. At the UPC, being busy is not a reason for extending deadlines. Lawyers and patent attorneys (say that they) are always busy! This is no excuse and “busy” and “hard-working” are very “loose” concepts. 2. My impression is that the UPC judges work harder than many representatives, and these representatives should realize that, certainly in First Instance, the judges have no younger associates or secretaries etc. to assist them. Until now, it has not even been possible to allow them to have a US style “clerk” working for them. Every brilliant law student would be delighted to work for a judge for a year as an intern, and the selected good ones could be of great help. However, in the UPC we do not seem to be able to realize that.
Full Decision Text
Local Division Munich UPC CFI 1321/2025 UPC CFI 1340/2026 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division Munich issued on 11 June 2026 CLAIMANT AND COUNTERDEFENDANT Advanced Standard Communication LLC, 675 Town Square Blvd., Suite 200, Garland, Texas 75040, USA, represented by its Manager, Mr. Jeremy Pitcock, represented by: Dr Michael Schneider and Philipp Neels, Taylor Wessing Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB, Isartorplatz 8, 80331 Munich. DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS 1. XIAOMI Inc., No. 006, floor 6, Building 6, Yard 33, Middle Xierqi Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China, represented by the managing director Mr. Lei Jun, 2. XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd, #019, 9th Floor, Building 6, 33 Xi’erqi Middle Road, Haidian District, Bejing China, represented by the legal representative Mr. Qu Heng, 3. XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., Prinses Beatrixlaan 582, WTC The Hague Toren E, 5e etage, 2595BM ’S-Gravenhage, Netherlands, represented by the managing director Xiaojun Mao, 4. XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH, Niederkasseler Lohweg 175, 40547 Düsseldorf, Germany, represented by the managing directors En Lin and Dong Wang, 2 represented by: Dr Andreas von Falck, Oliver Bäcker and Dr. Michael Plagge, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Dreischeibenhaus 1, 40211 Düsseldorf. PATENT AT ISSUE European Patent n° EP 3 016 464 B1 PANEL/DIVISION Panel 2 of the Local Division Munich DECIDING JUDGE/S This order has been issued by the Presiding Judge Dr D. Voß as Judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS Infringement action and Counterclaim for revocation – Application pursuant to Rule 9.3 RoP SUMMARY OF FACTS 1 The Claimant is suing the Defendants for patent infringement. Together with their Statement of Defence, the Defendants have filed a Counterclaim for revocation. The Claimant’s deadline for the Reply to the Statement of Defence and for the Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation expires on 22 June 2026. The oral hearing is scheduled for 11 December 2026. Pursuant to the Court’s order of 19 May 2026, the present case will be heard jointly with case UPC CFI 617/2024 which concerns the same parties and the same patent. REQUESTS 2 The Claimant requests, to extend the R. 29(a) RoP deadline currently expiring on 22 June 2026 by two weeks, i.e. until 6 July 2026. 3 Following an out-of-court request from the Claimant, the Defendants agreed to the deadline extension under the condition of reciprocity. 3 SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES 4 The Claimant states that, due to the agglomeration of submission deadlines for Claimant in this present and in several of the parallel infringement and invalidity proceedings between the same parties before the German national courts over the month of June, the timely and properly addressed and coordinated finalisation of Claimant’s technical and FRAND reply in this matter would likely not be feasible. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER 5 The requested deadline extension cannot be granted. 6 An extension of the deadline as requested would jeopardise the proper preparation of the oral hearing on 11 December 2026. As an Application to amend the patent is to be expected, as in case UPC CFI 617/2024, there will be three further rounds of written submissions following Claimant’s Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim. The time limits for these submissions amount to a total of four months. Taking into account time limits falling on weekends, the final pleading (Rejoinder to the Application to amend the patent) is therefore expected to be filed on 26 October 2026. This is already close to the hearing date and makes it difficult to prepare adequately for the hearing. A deadline extension of two weeks would bring the date of receipt of the final submission even closer to the hearing date, to 9 November 2026. Given the complexity of the case and other proceedings requiring preparation, adequate preparation for the hearing date can then no longer be guaranteed. 7 However, due to the weekends, which cause a deadline extension to the following Monday, the deadline may be extended until 24 June 2026 which at least leads to an extension of Defendants’ final time limit for two days to 26 October 2026. ORDER Claimant’s R. 29(a) RoP deadline is extended until 24 June 2026. The request for a further deadline extension is rejected.
Key Holdings
- UPC judges strictly enforce deadlines to maintain efficiency and prevent delays.
- Being busy with other national proceedings is not a valid reason for extending deadlines at the UPC.
- Parties cannot unilaterally or jointly decide to alter UPC deadlines; judicial approval is required and often denied.
- Extensions, even if agreed by parties, may be denied if they negatively impact the overall case management or preparation for hearings.
- The UPC emphasizes judicial efficiency and expects representatives to adapt to its timelines.
Tags
- Deadline
- Procedure
- Case Management
- Extension of Time
- Efficiency