Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Oppo

1

Order

of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent

Court issued on 2 June 2026

regarding: application to vary the order of 28 May

2026 (R. 335 RoP)

Claimant:

1) Koninklijke KPN N.V.

Wilhelminakade 123

3072 AP Ro:erdam

The Netherlands

Also “KPN”

represented by

Peter van Gemert

Defendant:

1) Oleading B.V.

Weena 505, 15th floor, space B1512

518100 Shenzhen, Guangdong Province

People's Republic of China

represented by

Rien Broekstra

2) ReflecTon Investment B.V.

Hofplein 20

3032 AC Ro:erdam

The Netherlands

represented by

Rien Broekstra

3) Orope Germany GmbH

Graf-Adolf-Platz 15

40213 Düsseldorf

Germany

represented by

Rien Broekstra

4) OTECH Germany GmbH

Graf-Adolf-Platz 15

40213 Düsseldorf

Germany

represented by

Rien Broekstra

The Hague - Local Division

UPC-CFI-0002246/2025

2

5) Guangdong OPPO Mobile TelecommunicaTons Corp.

No. 18, Haibin Road, Wusha, Chang’an Town

Dongguan, Guangdong

Republic of China

represented by

Rien Broekstra

Together also “Oppo”.

PATENT AT ISSUE:

EP3944587

DECIDING JUDGE

Presiding judge

Edger Brinkman

Judge-rapporteur

Edger Brinkman

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English

Subject-matter of the proceedings:

Infringement acTon

GROUNDS

Following the order of 28 May 2026, parTes jointly requested to vary that order slightly

in as far as it relates to case 2246/2026. The requested variaTons to the operaTve part

are as follows:

Paragraph 1. “Ul#mately within two weeks a)er the order, Claimant will grant access to

external counsel to Defendants and any external experts hired by Defendants (i) all

Claimant’s licenses for smartphone manufacturers since 2015 and (ii) all agreements in

which a license or a non-assert has been agreed that includes EP 587 and/or a family

member thereof (EP and/or foreign), with the excep#on of licenses rela#ng to payment

terminals or electronic payments, concluded since 2015 including earlier licenses in case

of a renewal of such license in the period since 2015, to the extent not already provided

following the Order of 13 April 2026, including in par#cular any license agreement

concluded with

and

since 2015 (hereinaPer together: the

“Materials”)”

And paragraph 111. “The deadline for the Statement of Defence shall be 11 September

The JR notes that the numbering unfortunately went sideways when converting to pdf.

3

2026”

The Judge-Rapporteur sees no reason not to allow this joint request. So will be ordered.

ORDER

The Court orders the following variaTons to the operaTve part of the order of 28 May

2026 for case 2246/2025:

1. UlTmately within two weeks a8er the order, Claimant will grant access to external

counsel to Defendants and any external experts hired by Defendants (i) all

Claimant’s licenses for smartphone manufacturers since 2015 and (ii) all

agreements in which a license or a non-assert has been agreed that includes EP

587 and/or a family member thereof (EP and/or foreign), with the excepTon of

licenses relaTng to payment terminals or electronic payments, concluded since

2015 including earlier licenses in case of a renewal of such license in the period

since 2015, to the extent not already provided following the Order of 13 April

2026, including in parTcular any license agreement concluded with

and

since 2015 (hereinajer together: the “Materials”);

11. The deadline for the Statement of Defence shall be 11 September 2026.

Presiding Judge and Judge

Rapporteur

For the Deputy Registrar

Larissa Donata

Hageman

Digitally signed by

Larissa Donata Hageman

Date: 2026.06.02

17:26:07 +02'00'

Edger Frank

BRINKMAN

Digitally signed by

Edger Frank BRINKMAN

Date: 2026.06.02

17:35:28 +02'00'

Larissa Donata

Hageman

Digitally signed by

Larissa Donata Hageman

Date: 2026.06.02

17:26:07 +02'00'

Edger Frank

BRINKMAN

Digitally signed by

Edger Fran