2025-07-02 - CD Paris - Xiaomi v. Daedalus Prime et al. - UPC_CFI_436/2024

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_436/2024
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
Art:
Decision
Parteien:
Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v. Daedalus Prime LLC, Xiaomi Inc.

Kernaussage: The Paris Central Division, sitting as a full panel, allowed the withdrawal of a stand-alone revocation action and of the parallel counterclaim for revocation after the parties had settled out of court.

2025-07-02 - CD Paris - Xiaomi v. Daedalus Prime et al. - UPC_CFI_436/2024
🗂️Nur Fallakte
Eine Entscheidung, mehrere Aktenzeichen

Das Gericht hat diese Verfahren zusammen entschieden und dasselbe Dokument in jedem davon eingestellt. Jeder Eintrag unten ist ein eigener vollwertiger Registereintrag.

  • UPC_CFI_436/2024 (Sie lesen diesen hier) Text zuerst hier gespeichert
  • UPC_CFI_288/2024
🏛️Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat• Decision
📅2025-07-02
🔢UPC_CFI_436/2024
Parteien & Vertreter
UPC_CFI_288/2024
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Xiaomi Technology France SAS
Tobias KAUFMANN
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Intel Corporation
Klaus HAFT
UPC_CFI_436/2024
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Tilman MUELLER-STOY
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Daedalus Prime LLC
Xiaomi Inc.
Tilman MUELLER-STOY
⚖️Counter claim for revocation
🌐English

notable
The Paris Central Division, sitting as a full panel, allowed the withdrawal of a stand-alone revocation action and of the parallel counterclaim for revocation after the parties had settled out of court. The oral hearing had already been held and the six-week period of R. 118.6 RoP for the decision on the merits was about to expire when the parties jointly applied for a stay under R. 295(d) RoP to allow the settlement to be concluded; the Court stayed the proceedings twice before the withdrawals were filed. The requirements of R. 265.1 RoP were met, so the proceedings are deemed closed and every order made in them is of no effect. On costs the Division held expressly that, no party having applied for a cost decision, the Court should not rule on costs and no decision under R. 265.2(c) RoP should have been issued.

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren