UPC CoA 854/2025

At the UPC: Xiaomi Group (93 cases)·Nera Innovations Ltd. (8 cases)

• 2026-08-03
  AppealPublic

  Summary: The Court of Appeal allowed both cross-appeals against the Hamburg Local Division's judgment of 10 July 2025 to be withdrawn under R. 265 RoP after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and declared the proceedings terminated. No cost decision was required because neither party made a cost application.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • withdrawal of an appeal (R. 265 RoP)
  • consent of the respondent to withdrawal
  • no cost decision where neither party applies for one (R. 265.2(c) RoP)
• 2026-06-30
  OtherPublic

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • admissibility on appeal of new documents and arguments under Art. 73(4) UPCA and R. 222.2 RoP
  • front-loaded character of UPC proceedings requires timely filing of private expert evidence
  • claim 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