2025-01-16 - CD Paris - Xiaomi et al. v. Xiaomi et al. - UPC_CFI_169/2024; UPC_CFI_436/2024

1. When in a parallel revocation action the oral hearing is already scheduled by the Central Division – and its date is approaching within the next two to three months – a referral of the counterclaim to the Central Division is the most practical solution, especially when expressly preferred by both parties. 2. As a stay of proceedings would lead to the consequence that all time-limits are automatically suspended and shall begin to run afresh from the date the stay comes to an end, R. 296.3 RoP, it is preferrable to continue with the infringement action, but to take the expected time line for the issuing of a final decision of the Central Division into consideration.

The Hamburg Local Division decided to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division while proceeding with the infringement action. The Court reserved the right to reconsider the possibility of suspending and/or separating the infringement action.