UPC_CFI_676/2025 – AX Wireless v Xiaomi
- Court
- Local Division Munich
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Extension of time Facts 1. In this case, among the four defendants, there are two Chinese companies which have to be served in accordance with the The Hague Convention, which takes time and often proves to be difficult. 2. The representative of all four Xiaomi companies (two Chinese, one German and one Dutch) offered to accept service for the Chinese companies if the time limits for filing a preliminary objection and the defence for the German and Dutch companies are extended until the due dates for the Chinese companies. 3. The claimant agreed. The Court The Court grants the request for extension of time, because overall it allows for a more expedient management of the case and consolidated written statements all due on the same day. Comment 1. Why did the US claimant bring this case in the very busy Local Division Munich and not in the less busy Local Division of The Hague (considering the Dutch defendant)? Probably because their representatives suggested that it was preferable for some reason. However, I wonder why. 2. Such alignment of appearance for Chinese defendants and time limits makes sense. When the Rules are revised, one should think about a Rule which would make accepting electronic service for non-EU defendants by a representative attractive!
Full Decision Text
UNIFIED PATENT COURT LOCAL DIVISION MUNICH UPC_CFI_676/2025 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division Munich issued on the 17 October 2025 CLAIMANT: AX Wireless, LLC 2025 Guadalupe Street, Suite 260 Street #3151, Austin, Texas 78705, USA represented by Hosea Haag (Ampersand Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwaelten mbB) DEFENDANTS: 1) Xiaomi Inc. No.006, floor 6, Building 6, Yard 33, Middle Xierqi Road, Haidian District, Beijing, Republic of China 2) Xiaomi Corporation, Anningzhuang Road Haidian District Beijing, Republic of China 3) Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH Niederkasseler Lohweg 175,40547, Dusseldorf Germany 4) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. Prinses Beatríxlaan 582, The Hague 2595BM, Kingdom of the Netherlands All Defendants represented by Henrik Lehment (Hogan Lovells International LLP) PATENT AT ISSUE: EUROPEAN PATENT NO EP3072324 PANEL: Panel 1 of the Local Division Munich DECIDING JUDGE: Rute Lopes as Judge-rapporteur LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English OBJECT Extension of deadlines/Alignment of deadlines (Request from October 10) REQUEST 1 Upon accepting service on behalf of Defendants 1) and 2), the Defendants requested, on behalf of Defendants 3) and 4), served at a previous date (August 28), that the Court extend the deadlines as follows: • For filing the Preliminary Objection: November 10, 2025; • For filing Observation to Preliminary Order on Confidentiality: November 10, 2025; • For filing the Statement of Defence, including Counterclaim for revocation: January 12, 2026. 2 The Defendants' reasons for the request are, in summary, the following: - These deadlines correspond to the statutory deadlines for Defendants 1) and 2) based on the date of service; - The alignment of deadlines for all Defendants is beneficial to the efficiency of the case. 3 The Claimant was heard on the request and expressed its acceptance. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER 4 The Court acknowledges that the acceptance of service in relation to Defendants 1) and 2), located in China, made it possible to expedite the proceedings in relation to these Defendants, for whom the date of service under the Hague Convention could not be anticipated. 2 5 On a reasoned request by a party, the Court may extend a time period referred to in the RoP - R. 9.3(a) RoP. 6 The request for an extension of the deadline should be granted in circumstances that justify such an extension, in view of the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity, without unduly compromising the principle of ensuring expeditious decisions. 7 The Court finds that, as a general rule, it is acceptable and even desirable for the parties and the Court that the case is treated uniformly, and that all Defendants file a consolidated defence. In this regard, the harmonisation of deadlines may result in significant efficiency in case management. 8 In this case, the requested alignment of deadlines for all Defendants that have the same representative, and to which the Claimant has concurred, will permit a more efficient and simpler case management either by the parties or the Court. Furthermore, such alignment does not affect the pace of the case time periods. Given the date of service of Defendants 1 and 2, the legal deadlines for those Defendants would, as a rule, have to be respected in any case. 9 The request is therefore sustained and should be granted. ORDER The request for the extension of deadlines for Defendants 3) and 4) is granted to align with the deadlines for Defendants 1) and 2) as follows: • The Preliminary Objection is due on November 10, 2025, for all Defendants. • The Observation to Preliminary Order on Confidentiality is due on November 10, 2025, for all Defendants. • The Statement of Defence, including Counterclaim for revocation, is due on January 12, 2026, for all Defendants. Assinado de forma Rute Alexandra digital por Rute Da Silva Sabino Alexandra Da Silva Sabino Lopes Lopes Dados: 2025.10.17 11:50:01 +01'00' 3
Key Holdings
- Extension of time granted to align deadlines for EU and non-EU defendants.
- Representative accepted service for Chinese defendants in exchange for extension.
- Consolidated schedule promotes case management efficiency.
Tags
- Added Matter
- Case Management
- China
- Service