UPC CoA 183/2024
Apr 22, 2024·EP2792100 · METHOD AND DEVICE FOR SECURE COMMUNICATIONS OVER A NETWORK USING A HARDWARE SECURITY ENGINE
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Claim dismissed)ActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Respondents
- MediaTek, Inc.Operating co.
- Xiaomi Inc.Operating co.
- Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.Operating co.
- Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbHOperating co.
- Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.Operating co.
Representatives- Tilman Mueller-Stoy-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication
- Language
- English
- First decided
- May 1, 2024
- Last decision
- Aug 6, 2024
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Rian Kalden | Locked |
| Judge Ingeborg Simonsson | Locked |
| Judge Patricia Rombach | Locked |
At the UPC: Daedalus Prime LLC (10 cases)·MediaTek Group (20 cases)
This dispute contains 9 other proceedings
UPC CFI 113/2025·UPC CoA 621/2024·UPC CFI 436/2024·UPC CFI 169/2024·UPC APP 42733/2024 and 4 more
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2024
- 2024-08-06Appeal RoP220.2Public
Summary: Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_183/2024) addressing service of a Statement of Claim on defendants based in China and Taiwan. The Court held that a group company in a Contracting Member State cannot automatically be used to serve Chinese or Taiwanese parent companies; Hague Convention procedures must normally be attempted first for China, and diplomatic/consular channels for Taiwan, before alternative methods are permitted.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Service on defendants in China and Taiwan (R. 273, R. 274 RoP)
- Hague Service Convention
- Service via group company
- Alternative methods of service
- 2024-06-04
Summary: Court of Appeal (4 June 2024) rejected Daedalus Prime LLC's application to partially withdraw its appeal as against Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE only. The CoA held that those respondents had been served, had responded to the appeal, and had a legitimate interest in having the appeal adjudicated in relation to them, so partial withdrawal would impermissibly deprive them of their right to be heard.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Partial withdrawal of appeal (R. 265 RoP)
- Right to be heard
- Respondents' legitimate interest
- 2024-05-01Application RoP 333Public
Summary: Court of Appeal (Second Panel) dismissed Daedalus Prime LLC's request for panel review of an order refusing extension of time for the Statement of Grounds of Appeal. The panel found no grounds to deviate from the judge-rapporteur's order, holding that the desire to present a thorough analysis or obtain a legal opinion does not justify extension.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Panel review (R. 333 RoP)
- Extension of time for Statement of Grounds of Appeal (R. 224.2, R. 9.3 RoP)
- Exceptional circumstances for extension
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated | 2025-06-16 | Not public |
| Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated | 2025-06-12 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-02-14 | Not public |
| Close workflow | 2025-02-14 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-02-14 | Not public |
| Close workflow | 2025-02-14 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-02-12 | Not public |
| Close workflow | 2025-02-12 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-02-12 | Not public |
| Close workflow | 2025-02-12 | Public |