Alle Fälle anzeigen
UPC CoA 854/2025
—·EP2642632: Wireless power receiver and method of manufacturing the same
- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartSonstigesKategorieSonstige prozessuale
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
- Xiaomi Inc.
- Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
- Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Vertreter: Eva Acker (Freshfields) - Division
- Court of Appeal
- Richter
- Ulrike Voß · presiding
- Bart van den Broek · rapporteur
- Nathalie Sabotier · legally qualified
- Eric Augarde · technically qualified
- Dennis Kretschmann · technically qualified
- Technology
- Automotive
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 30. Juni 2026
Entscheidungen
- 2026-06-30BerufungsentscheidungOther
In the cross-appeals against the Hamburg Local Division decision of 10 July 2025 concerning EP 2 642 632, the Court of Appeal disregarded Xiaomi's exhibits FBD-T38 and FBD-T39 and its inventive-step arguments based on D1, D2 and D4 against auxiliary requests 2, 7A, 10A, 11A and 12A. Xiaomi gave no reason why the expert evidence was not filed at first instance, contrary to the front-loaded character of UPC proceedings and Art. 73(4) UPCA with R. 222.2 RoP, and claim construction is a question of law for the Court rather than for an expert; the inventive-step line based on Xiaomi's own claim construction was a new argument it had deliberately withheld at first instance.
Rechtsfragen:admissibility on appeal of new documents and arguments under Art. 73(4) UPCA and R. 222.2 RoPfront-loaded character of UPC proceedings requires timely filing of private expert evidenceclaim construction is a question of law for the Court, not for an expert (Insulet v EOFlow)a new inventive-step line based on a party's own claim construction is a new argument, not a relabelling of the same case
Dokumente
- Order%20%28R.222%29%20692-2025%20and%20854-2025%20%28final%29_DK_EA_anonymized.pdf2026-06-30DE