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
Malikie Innovations Ltd.vsRespondent
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_555/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 18/11/2024 APPLICANT Malikie Innovations Ltd. (Claimant) - The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street Lower Dun Laoghaire - A96 VR66 - Dublin - IE Represe
Aarke ABvsSodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
Microsoft CorporationvsRespondent
This order concerns generic procedural applications filed by Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in an underlying infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, seeking a decision by default against the claimant. Microsoft argued that Suinno failed to provide security for costs within the court-ordered time limit and that the facts justified dismissing the infringement action, dismissing the application to amend the patent, and revoking European patent EP 2 671 173 in its entirety. Suinno did not oppose a default decision against itself, instead seeking confirmation of the patent's validity, a finding of infringement, and payment of €2,000,000 under 'invoice 1331'. The Court addressed the legal framework for default decisions under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd.vsInsulet Corporation
In principle, the costs of the proceedings are not covered by confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP or by the attorney-client privilege unless they are specifically indicative of the company's financial capacity, its commercial strategy, or the importance of the patent as a corporate asset. Applying these principles, confidentiality as a general principle might also be granted to costs incurred by companies for legal services relating to litigation and patent protection, since this informatio
Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbHvsZentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva France
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in four consolidated sets of patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for treating castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva generic pharmaceutical companies across various UPC member states. The order addresses preliminary objections, sets further procedural deadlines, and confirms dates for interim conferences and the oral hearing.
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.