Overview · Filed: —
UPC_APP_619/2025
RADIO COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND CONSTELLATION CONTROL METHOD
Procedural & sub-applicationsCase Management OrdersMunich LDApplication Rop 333—
Parties
Claimants
- Panasonic Holdings Corporation(Panasonic Group)
Reps: Christof Augenstein (Kather Augenstein); Jonas Block (Kather Augenstein); Miriam Kiefer (Kather Augenstein)
Respondents
- Xiaomi Inc.(Xiaomi Group)(OPPO Group)
- Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd.(Xiaomi Group)(OPPO Group)
- Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH(Xiaomi Group)(OPPO Group)
- Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S.(Xiaomi Group)(OPPO Group)
- Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.(Xiaomi Group)(OPPO Group)
- Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.(Xiaomi Group)(OPPO Group)
- Xiaomi H.K. Limited(Xiaomi Group)(OPPO Group)
- Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.(Xiaomi Group)(OPPO Group)
- Odiporo GmbH(Xiaomi Group)(OPPO Group)
- Shamrock Mobile GmbH(Xiaomi Group)(OPPO Group)
- Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.(Xiaomi Group)(OPPO Group)
- OROPE Germany GmbH(Xiaomi Group)(OPPO Group)
Reps: Henrik Lehment (Hogan Lovells); Benjamin Schröer (Hogan Lovells); Tobias J. Hessel (Clifford Chance)
Judges
- Matthias ZigannPresiding judge and judge-rapporteur
- András KupeczLegally qualified judge
- Tobias PichlmaierLegally qualified judge
- Kerstin RoselingerTechnically qualified judge
Patents
- EP 3 024 163SEP · LTE
CPC codes: H04L1/18, H04L27/2626, H04W72/20, H04L5/0007, H04J13/22, H04W72/23, H04L2001/125, H04L1/1825, H04L5/0055, H04L1/1893, H04J13/0003, H04L1/1861…
Sector: Telecommunications
Outcome
Costs only
Filed: —
First decided: Feb 25, 2025
Language: —
Munich Local Division panel order reviewing (R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier decision to refund only 40% of court fees following withdrawal of infringement actions and counterclaims (after out-of-court settlement) in patent proceedings by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi entities (UPC_CFI_220/2023) and Guangdong OPPO Mobile (UPC_CFI_221/2023) concerning EP 3 024 163. Panasonic argued a 60% refund was due. The panel confirmed the 40% refund rate, finding the withdrawals occurred after closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP).