Context: Nera Innovations, an Atlantic IP portfolio company, has now lost all three of its patent assertions against Xiaomi in German and UPC proceedings. The company failed to win an infringement finding on a former LG patent before the UPC’s Hamburg Local Division (LD) (July 10, 2025 ip fray article), and a second Nera patent was invalidated at the trial stage by the Federal Patent Court of Germany, effectively ending a related Munich case (February 11, 2026 ip fray article).
What’s new: The UPC Court of Appeal (CoA), in an order signed by Presiding Judge Ulrike Voss (“Voß”), has suspended two related appeals arising out of the Hamburg LD July 10, 2025 decision on EP2642632 (“Wireless power receiver and method of manufacturing the same”): Nera’s appeal of the dismissal of its infringement claim and Xiaomi’s appeal of the ruling on the counterclaim for invalidity. The oral hearing, previously set for July 16, 2026, has been canceled. The order, issued July 13, 2026, invokes Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure, under which the court may adjourn proceedings at the parties’ joint request.
Direct impact: Both appeals are now on hold, and the parties will not have to prepare for or attend a hearing that was just three days away. A joint request to suspend proceedings, this close to a scheduled hearing, is typically a sign that a settlement is being finalized rather than a routine scheduling matter.
Wider ramifications: Xiaomi has built a track record of negotiating settlements in good faith while defending itself decisively when it considers a patent holder’s demands unreasonable, and it has now shown this pattern across all three of its proceedings with Nera. If the parties are indeed close to a settlement, one can reasonably assume any settlement amount reflects a sum Xiaomi views as reasonable. Had that not been the case, Xiaomi would more likely have proceeded with the appellate hearing and let the CoA decide the matter.
What this suspension likely means for the other two Nera fronts
This UPC case is the last one still procedurally open of Nera’s three campaigns against Xiaomi. The Düsseldorf Regional Court case was stayed after the court voiced doubts about the validity of the asserted patent, and the Munich case is effectively dead following the Federal Patent Court’s invalidation of the relevant claims. If Xiaomi and Nera are settling the UPC dispute, it would be logical for a broader deal to cover all three patents rather than just EP’632, since Nera’s remaining leverage in the other two cases is already thin.
Rule 295(d) suspensions do not come with a fixed resumption date. The CoA will presumably wait for the parties to report back, either with a notice of settlement and withdrawal or a request to lift the suspension and proceed toward a new hearing date.
Court and counsel
Presiding Judge: Ulrike VoĂź.
Counsel for Nera: Peterreins Schley’s Dr. Thomas Adam.
Counsel for Xiaomi: Freshfields’ Eva Acker.