UPC Court of Appeal
UPC_CoA_183/2024
App_23543/2024

ORDER
of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 1 May 2024
concerning a request for panel review of an order concerning extension of the time period for lodging a
Statement of grounds of appeal (R.224.2(b), R.9.3(a) and R.333 RoP)

APPLICANT (AND CLAIMANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI):
Daedalus Prime LLC, New York, USA
represented by: Dr. Marc Grunwald, Rechtsanwalt, Peterreins Schley, Munich, Germany

RESPONDENTS (AND 3 and 4; DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI):
1) Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
2) Xiaomi Inc., Beijing, China
3) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., The Hague, the Netherlands
represented by: Prof. Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy, Rechtsanwalt, Bardehle Pagenberg
4) Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
represented by: Prof. Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy, Rechtsanwalt, Bardehle Pagenberg
5) MediaTek Inc., Hsin-Chu City, Taiwan

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
English

PATENT IN SUIT
EP 2792100

PANEL
Second Panel

DECIDING JUDGES:
This order has been issued by the second panel consisting of:
Rian Kalden, Presiding judge and legally qualified judge
Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge and judge rapporteur
Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge

IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
□ Date: 18 April 2024
□ Order ORD_20986/2024, concerning ACT_19012/2024, in the infringement action UPC_CFI_169/2024

SUMMARY OF FACTS
In the impugned order, the Court of First Instance dismissed the claimant`s (Daedalus`) requests for service
of the Statement of claim on three of the defendants via their respective German branch offices. Daedalus
appealed the order and asked for extended time to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal. On 29 April
2024, the judge-rapporteur denied the request for extension (ORD_23174/2024). As set out in the said
order, Daedalus had explained that, given that the order of the Court of Appeal can be a precedent, it
wanted to present a thorough analysis and was in the process of seeking a legal opinion from a law
professor. The judge-rapporteur, however, took the view that Daedalus could and should have sought
external advice and comprehensively set out its own arguments before lodging the Statement of claim with the Court of First Instance, and that at this stage in the proceedings there was no reason to extend the time period for lodging the Statement of grounds of appeal.

INDICATION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST:
Daedalus has applied for a panel review of the order of 29 April 2024 pursuant to R.333 RoP. In addition to
the reasons stated in the request which was denied, Daedalus has brought forward that it had good
reasons to assume that the Hamburg Local Division would be convinced by its line of argumentation
concerning service of the Statement of claim, that additional aspects may come up in the appeal process
since the discussion pertains to legal issues, and that there has been a systemic problem of the CMS in the
context of this procedural appeal.
Respondents 3 and 4 have been heard and have refuted the request.

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER
The panel agrees with the order of the judge-rapporteur. Furthermore, the issues with the CMS have not
been such as to prevent Daedalus from lodging the Statement of grounds of appeal in time.

ORDER
The panel confirms the order of the judge-rapporteur (ORD_23174/2024) and hence the request for
extension is denied.

Issued on 1 May 2024