2 cases · page 1 of 1
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) and others v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of an appeal under Rule 265 RoP. The appellants (Ericsson entities) had appealed a decision of the Lisbon Local Division that dismissed their application under Rules 360 and 361 RoP to strike out the respondent's (Shenzhen Transsion's) requests for injunctive relief in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 123 910. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, finding the requirements of Rule 265.1 RoP satisfied, and declared the proceedings closed.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc
The Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Lisbon confirmed a cost settlement between Ericsson and Asustek under Rule 365.1 RoP in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 819 131. Following a merits decision upholding Ericsson's infringement claim and dismissing Asustek's counterclaim for revocation, Ericsson requested confirmation of the parties' jointly submitted cost agreement requiring Asustek to pay EUR 150,000. The Court rejected Asustek's arguments that the agreement merely fixed a cost ceiling requiring a separate R. 150 procedure, holding that the substance of the agreement constituted a settlement resolving a potential cost dispute.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.