Telecom — European UPC Patent Cases
13 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 13 total
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Sercomm Corporation, SerComm Deutschland GmbH, Sercomm France SARL, Sercomm Italia SRL
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action filed by Huawei Technologies against four Sercomm entities. The order, issued following an early interim hearing under Rule 105.5 RoP, sets dates for a further interim hearing and oral hearing, and addresses procedural matters including service, defense strategy, and potential separation of proceedings. The dispute concerns alleged indirect and direct infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1, which Huawei asserts is essential for WiFi6.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Ericsson Holding International B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V., Ericsson Telecomunicações, Lda.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.
CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, Telekom Deutschland GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning a confidentiality request in an infringement dispute over European Patent EP 1 934 794 B1. The court partially granted the defendants' request for protection of confidential information under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure, classifying sales figures, infrastructure details, and internal technical/commercial information as confidential, but denying protection for customer names and customer information that were already publicly available.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital UK Limited, Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an application for withdrawal of an action for provisional measures. InterDigital, which had obtained ex parte preliminary measures against Amazon from the Mannheim Local Division, applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures with Amazon's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, finding no need for a cost decision since both parties agreed not to seek reimbursement of costs.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others
This order concerns three appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, in which the appellants (Shenzhen Transsion and related entities) sought to withdraw their appeals against a confidentiality order issued by the Hague Local Division in underlying infringement proceedings brought by Ericsson concerning three European patents related to 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals and sought reimbursement of 50% of the court fees, with Ericsson's consent.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a confidentiality order issued by The Hague Local Division in underlying infringement proceedings involving three European patents related to 4G LTE and 5G NR technology in the context of a FRAND licence dispute. After the parties reached a settlement providing for termination of the appeal proceedings by withdrawal of the underlying CFI proceedings, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals with Ericsson's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH, Cisco Systems, Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a withdrawal of appeal and a request for reimbursement of court fees. After the Local Division Hamburg dismissed Lionra's infringement action and Cisco's revocation counterclaim, Lionra appealed. Before the oral hearing, the parties settled and Lionra withdrew its appeal with Cisco's consent. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, deemed the cross-appeal withdrawn, and terminated the proceedings. However, it rejected Lionra's request for a 20% reimbursement of court fees, holding that the amended Rule 370.9 RoP (effective January 1, 2026) applied to the withdrawal request filed on July 6, 2026, which no longer provides for such reimbursement.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK and Arvato in connection with EP 2727342 B1, a patent related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology, during the final stages of pending main proceedings on the merits before the Milan Local Division. Ericsson argued urgency based on delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and ASUSTeK's launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new or supervening factual circumstances warranting interim relief beyond the temporal aggravation inherent in awaiting a final decision on the merits.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Division Munich concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1, where the Defendants sought to classify certain information in their Rejoinder and document production requests as Confidential or Highly Confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The Claimant requested that an external expert from Ankura Consulting Group LLC and his entire team be granted access to the highly confidential information. The Court granted confidentiality protections and restricted access to the highly confidential information to the Claimant's UPC representatives, its manager Jeremy Pitcock, and one named expert from Ankura, with the Claimant reserving the right to name two additional team members.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd, Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd, OROPE Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V., OTech Italia s.r.l., Realme Germany GmbH v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
OPPO filed a unified submission on 3 June 2026 in the infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_525/2025) that was intended to also cover the parallel revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_2022/2025) concerning European patent EP 3 346 616, but inadvertently only uploaded it to the infringement workflow. After the Court encouraged OPPO to file the submission in the correct revocation workflow, OPPO did so on 13 June 2026 and applied under Rule 9 RoP for confirmation that the time limit had been duly complied with. The Court confirmed that the time limit for filing the Reply to the Counterclaim for revocation had been duly complied with, treating the late upload as a mere technical correction.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC
This order concerns the enforcement of a decision dated 6 May 2026 in proceedings between Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Claimant) and Asustek Computer Inc (Defendant) concerning European Patent No EP 2 819 131 B1. On 15 June 2026, the Claimant notified the Court pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP of its intention to enforce the decision, and the Defendant raised no objection. The Local Division in Lisbon acknowledged that the Claimant had complied with Rule 118.8 RoP in respect of the orders of the decision in their entirety, with effect from 15 June 2026.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute v.Meta Platforms, Inc.
Procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European patent EP 3 258 692 B1. The parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings because they had reached an amicable settlement in out-of-court negotiations that still required implementation. The court granted the stay under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure, ordering the parties to update the court by 10 August 2026 if they had not withdrawn their respective actions.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.