UPC CFI 617/2024
Nov 6, 2024·EP3016464 SEP · METHOD FOR MEASURING DISCOVERY SIGNAL, BASE STATION, AND TERMINAL
- Case details
- StatusWritten PhaseActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- ClaimantsRepresentatives
- Michael Schneider-Eisenführ Speiser
- Philipp Neels-Eisenführ Speiser
- Désirée Heintz-Eisenführ Speiser
- Ludger Eckey-Eisenführ Speiser
Respondents- Xiaomi Inc.Operating co.
- Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.Operating co.
- Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.Operating co.
- Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Oliver Bäcker-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Andreas von Falck-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Apr 23, 2026
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Daniel Voss | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Rute Lopes | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Georg Werner | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Alessandro Sanchini | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Advanced Standard Communication LLC (8 cases)·Xiaomi Group (92 cases)
This dispute contains 4 other proceedings
UPC CoA 67/2026·UPC CFI 1340/2026·UPC CFI 1321/2025·UPC CFI 398/2025
3 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
- 2026-04-23Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The panel issued a correction order to fix a clerical error in the case number of its earlier order dated 23 April 2026. The case number was corrected from UPC_CFI_617/2025 to UPC_CFI_617/2024. No substantive patent ruling was made.
Show the legal issues (1)
- correction of clerical error in case number
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Communication | 2026-07-14 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-05-27 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-05-27 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-05-27 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-05-26 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-05-26 | Not public |
| Exhibit Claimant | 2026-05-26 | Not public |
| Submission Claimant | 2026-05-26 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-05-26 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-05-26 | Not public |
The FRAND bank guarantee provided by Defendants does not constitute a valuable asset of the Claimant and does not relieve Claimant of the obligation to provide security for costs, because it is impossible to predict whether any licence payment claim will materialise
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R. 158.1 RoP; consistent with CFI_525/2025 (Asus v Oppo) and CFI_498/2025 (Crystal Clear Codec v Oppo)Once Defendants presented credible reasons for doubting Claimant's financial position, the burden shifted to Claimant to substantiate its financial situation, which Claimant failed to do
RespondentLegal basis: Court of Appeal orders: UPC_CoA_217/2024, UPC_CoA_431/2025, UPC_CoA_8/2025, UPC_CoA_890/2026ATE insurance not yet obtained cannot discharge an existing security-for-costs obligation; the Rules of Procedure only allow fulfilment by bank guarantee or deposit
RespondentLegal basis: R. 158.1 and R. 158.4 RoP
The FRAND bank guarantee provided by Defendants exceeds the security-for-costs amount and therefore relieves Claimant of the obligation to provide security for costs
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R. 158.1 RoPDefendants failed to provide sufficient evidence of Claimant's poor financial position to justify a security-for-costs order, as being an LLC alone does not warrant such an order
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 158.1 RoPThe security-for-costs order should be revised to allow Claimant to provide proof of ATE insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement as an alternative to the EUR 300,000 security
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 333.1 RoP; UPC_CoA_890/2025 (Syntorr/Arthrex)