Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 MAY 2024

UPC Service On Defendants: A Discrepancy In Approach Between Local Divisions?

Marks & Clerk
Marks & Clerk
Contributor
Marks & Clerk

Marks & Clerk

Marks & Clerk LLP was founded in 1887 by George Croydon Marks, who was joined in partnership by...

View firm profile
Explore more from Marks & Clerk

April 18th saw the release of the third in a series of decisions concerning the Xiaomi family of companies, highlighting a potential divergence between the behaviours of some of the UPC divisions.

United KingdomIntellectual Property

April 18th saw the release of the third in a series of decisions concerning the Xiaomi family of companies, highlighting a potential divergence between the behaviours of some of the UPC divisions. 

Panasonic filed independent infringement actions against a group of ten defendants including a number of members of the Xiaomi family of companies, in the Munich Local Division based on EP2197132, EP3024163, and EP2584854, and in the Mannheim Local Division based on EP2568724. All four infringement actions were brought at the same time. Meanwhile, Daedalus Prime LLC filed an infringement action in the Hamburg Local Division based on EP2792100 against a group of five defendants, including three members of the Xiaomi family.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from