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
Network System Technologies LLCvsVolkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the lack of jurisdiction issues to the main proceeding.
Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc.vsTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of a preliminary injunction application filed by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1. The Lisbon Local Division held that R. 150 RoP can apply to cost decisions following the rejection of a preliminary injunction, and applied the principle of proportionality to award only the travel expenses of the representatives (EUR 4,946.22), rejecting the other claimed costs to avoid the risk of double assessment with the subsequently filed main action on the merits.
Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à r.l., Amazon.com, Inc.vsNokia Technologies Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Amazon's request to file an additional written submission in reply to Nokia's response to Amazon's appeal, filed just five days before the scheduled oral hearing. The court held that the written procedure before the Court of Appeal is limited to the appellant's grounds of appeal and the respondent's response, and granting Amazon a further written submission would violate the principle of equality of arms.
Hypertherm Inc.vsTec.Mo. s.r.l.
Hypertherm Inc. filed a patent infringement assessment action against Tec.Mo. s.r.l. before the Local Division of Milan. After the proceedings were suspended to allow settlement negotiations, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested termination of the proceedings under rule 360 RoP, along with a 60% reimbursement of court fees under rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP. The court granted both requests, ordering the archiving of the case and the reimbursement of 6,600 Euro to Hypertherm Inc.
IMC CréationsvsMul-T-Lock France
IMC Créations, a French company specializing in anti-theft systems for utility vehicles, brought an infringement action against Mul-T-Lock France concerning its MVP 1000 padlock, alleging infringement of European patent EP 4 153 830 (a unitary patent). Mul-T-Lock counterclaimed for nullity. The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court found infringement of claims 1 and 6 as modified, granted an injunction, ordered recall and destruction of infringing products, and ordered information disclosure, while rejecting claims relating to the Swiss part of the patent.
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.