In re Ex Parte Application of Xiaomi Inc, Xiaomi Communication CO, Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GMBH
3:25-mc-01158
| S.D. Cal. | Aug 5, 2025Background
- Xiaomi, as defendant in a patent infringement suit in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Munich, Germany, filed an ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in the Southern District of California, seeking discovery from Qualcomm, a non-party, for use in the foreign proceeding.
- The patent at issue is alleged to have been acquired by Advanced Standard Communications LLC (ASC) from ZTE Corporation; Xiaomi argues some of its products use Qualcomm chipsets that may relate to the asserted patent.
- Qualcomm, headquartered in San Diego, falls within the jurisdiction of the court for this matter and did not oppose Xiaomi's application.
- Xiaomi’s request is narrowly defined, seeking only agreements between Qualcomm and ZTE related to the relevant patent and mobile standards (2G–5G), and information confirming authenticity.
- The UPC, according to Xiaomi, does not permit U.S.-style pretrial discovery, and neither Qualcomm nor ZTE are parties in the foreign litigation, so the evidence is likely unobtainable except via this application.
- The application’s arguments focus on statutory eligibility under § 1782 and show that discretionary factors favor grant of the request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory eligibility of § 1782 discovery | Qualcomm is in district; UPC is a qualified foreign tribunal; Xiaomi is an interested party | Not opposed | Statutory requirements satisfied |
| Foreign tribunal's receptivity to discovery | UPC would be receptive and accept the evidence | Not opposed | No evidence of UPC unreceptiveness; favors Xiaomi |
| Circumvention of foreign proof-gathering policies | No foreign prohibition, evidence not otherwise obtainable | Not opposed | No evidence of circumvention; favors Xiaomi |
| Requests unduly intrusive or burdensome | Requests narrowly tailored; protective order offered | Reserved right to object | Xiaomi must address objections; favors granting |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (sets framework for discretionary factors under § 1782)