Short Summary
Apple Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerning Ericsson's appeals against orders of the Milan Local Division that had rejected an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, finding that Apple had demonstrated a legal interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Ericsson and Apple. The Court granted Apple the right to file a Statement in intervention, respond at the oral hearing, and participate in support of Ericsson's position, while rejecting Apple's separate applications to file further submissions.
Detailed Summary
This order concerns Apple Inc.'s application to intervene under R. 313 RoP in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The underlying main proceedings were initiated on 14 June 2024 when Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed two infringement actions against ASUSTEK Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd. before the Milan Local Division, concerning European patents EP 2 727 342 and EP 3 076 673. ASUS et al. filed counterclaims for revocation and applications for a confidentiality regime under R. 262.2 and 262A RoP. Ericsson requested an 'external eyes only' regime for confidential documents, including licence agreements with third parties. By orders of 28 April 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division established a confidentiality regime but rejected the 'external eyes only' regime, allowing one natural person from each party access to confidential information. Ericsson's applications for review of these confidentiality orders were dismissed by panel review orders of 20 June 2025. Ericsson then filed appeals seeking to set aside the panel review orders and obtain an 'external eyes only' regime for specific Confidential License Agreements.
Apple filed applications to intervene, seeking admission in support of Ericsson's position, an opportunity to lodge a Statement of intervention within 15 days, and permission to participate in the oral hearing. Apple argued that agreements between Ericsson and Apple, including materials relating to their formation and performance, could be disclosed to ASUS et al., and that such agreements contain highly confidential information that could be disclosed to Apple's competitors. Ericsson did not oppose the intervention, while ASUS requested rejection, arguing that the appeal proceedings were not an intervenable action, that Apple failed to demonstrate a legal interest, and that Apple's concerns were unfounded.
The Court of Appeal, sitting as Panel 1a (President Klaus Grabinski, judge-rapporteur Peter Blok, and judge Emmanuel Gougé), referred the decision on admissibility to the panel under R. 331.2 RoP. The Court rejected ASUS's argument that R. 313 RoP requires a legal interest in the final outcome of the action, holding that under R. 313.1 RoP, an interim order such as an order establishing a confidentiality regime is part of 'the result of the action' and is an 'order sought by one of the parties' under R. 313.2 RoP. The Court found that Apple had a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Ericsson and Apple. The Court noted that the merits of Apple's concerns would be decided in the final orders of the appeal proceedings, but that Apple's status as a party to the relevant agreements was sufficient for admission as an intervener.
The Court issued an order on 23 September 2025 admitting Apple as an intervener in support of Ericsson's position, granting Apple 15 days to file a Statement in intervention, allowing Ericsson, ASUS, and Arvato 15 days to respond, permitting Apple to participate in the oral hearing, and rejecting Apple's separate applications to file further submissions in response to ASUS's comments on the intervention applications.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in APPLE Inc. (intervener) in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson vs ASUSTEK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.