UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CoA 183/2024

Apr 22, 2024·EP2792100 · METHOD AND DEVICE FOR SECURE COMMUNICATIONS OVER A NETWORK USING A HARDWARE SECURITY ENGINE

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Claim dismissed)
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication
Language
English
First decided
May 1, 2024
Last decision
Aug 6, 2024
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Rian KaldenLocked
Judge Ingeborg SimonssonLocked
Judge Patricia RombachLocked

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

UPC CFI 288/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2024

Decisions
  • 2024-08-06
    Appeal 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
  • 2024-05-01
    Application 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 titleDatePublic
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2025-06-16Not public
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2025-06-12Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-02-14Not public
Close workflow2025-02-14Public
Outcome of the Order2025-02-14Not public
Close workflow2025-02-14Public
Outcome of the Order2025-02-12Not public
Close workflow2025-02-12Public
Outcome of the Order2025-02-12Not public
Close workflow2025-02-12Public