A judge reviewed the schedule for a big patent case. They made sure everyone had enough time to present their arguments. One company (Xiaomi) raised a new important point late, so the judge gave another company (Panasonic) extra time to answer it.
Key Facts
- •Pre-trial review (PTR) in a patent infringement case between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and Xiaomi and Oppo.
- •Dispute over timetabling for the trial.
- •Concerns about the allocation of time for oral submissions.
- •Late emergence of a significant issue concerning the reliability of a 'Red licence' as a comparable in Xiaomi's evidence.
- •Panasonic's request for additional time to respond to Xiaomi's late-emerging point concerning the Red licence.
Legal Principles
Outcomes
The court set a new timetable for the trial.
The judge aimed to ensure fairness and efficiency, allowing sufficient time for all parties' submissions while prioritizing the importance of the newly raised 'Red licence' issue.
Panasonic was granted an extension to submit fact and expert evidence in response to Xiaomi's late-emerging point.
The court considered the late emergence of the point and its significance. It deemed it unjust to prevent Panasonic from responding, and balanced this need against maintaining a tight trial timetable.