Short Summary
This case concerns appeals filed by Shenzhen Transsion and related entities against an order of the Local Division of The Hague dated 27 May 2026, which granted Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures under Rules 262A and 262.2 RoP in three related infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 2 712 236, EP 3 836 631, and EP 3 245 744 in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. The Court of First Instance had ordered a phased confidentiality regime restricting access to sensitive licensing information to external representatives and independent licensing experts, excluding in-house representatives during the first phase. Shenzhen Transsion sought leave to appeal, which was granted by the CFI on 15 June 2026, and the appeals were lodged on 24 June 2026, requesting the Court of Appeal to set aside the impugned order.
Detailed Summary
This matter arises from three related infringement proceedings before the Local Division of The Hague of the Court of First Instance (case numbers UPC-CFI-0001568/2025, UPC-CFI-0001793/2025, and UPC-CFI-0001791/2025). On 13 November 2025, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL), a Swedish telecommunications company, commenced infringement proceedings against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. (a Chinese company) and several related entities, including Tecno Mobile Limited, Itel Mobile Limited, Infinix Mobility Limited, Tekpoint GmbH, IRD Distribuce S.R.O., x-kom GmbH, and NTT System S.A., along with two other co-defendants (TradeInn Retail Services, S.L. and Egenta s.r.o.). The proceedings concerned three European patents (EP 2 712 236, EP 3 836 631, and EP 3 245 744) in the context of a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licence between the parties in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. The Court subsequently ordered the claims to be separated into three proceedings.
Ericsson applied for confidentiality measures under Rules 262A and 262.2 RoP, seeking protection of information relating to licence negotiations and comparable licence agreements. Ericsson requested that the protected information be disclosed only to certain persons under a confidentiality club regime, including the possibility of a coordinated confidentiality regime across related proceedings pending before other UPC divisions. The central dispute between the parties concerned the scope of the confidentiality regime: Ericsson advocated an "external-eyes-only" regime, while Shenzhen Transsion sought access for in-house representatives. The Court of First Instance granted Ericsson's confidentiality application and ordered a phased confidentiality regime, whereby during the first phase of the proceedings, access to the most sensitive licensing information was restricted to the parties' UPC representatives, their assistants, and designated independent licensing experts and external licensing counsel, with no access to in-house representatives at this stage.
& Analysis: On 10 June 2026, Shenzhen Transsion, together with the two other co-defendants, filed a request for leave to appeal against the impugned order, requesting the Court to grant leave to appeal pursuant to R. 220.2 RoP or, alternatively, to record refusal in order to enable a request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP. By order of 15 June 2026, the CFI, while referring to the caselaw of the Court of Appeal according to which no decision from the CFI within a 15-day period from the impugned decision is deemed to be a refusal, granted leave to appeal the impugned order, assuming that the applications were admissible and should not be considered refused. On 24 June 2026, Shenzhen Transsion lodged appeals against the impugned order, requesting the Court of Appeal to set aside the impugned order. The appeals were registered under case numbers UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, and UPC-CoA-102/2026 before the Court of Appeal, presided over by legally qualified and standing judge Emmanuel Gougé.
Final Order & Ruling: The order of the Court of Appeal was issued on 2 July 2026, addressing the appeals filed by Shenzhen Transsion against the confidentiality measures ordered by the Local Division of The Hague. The appellants were represented by Andreas Kramer of Powell Gilbert LLP, Düsseldorf, Germany, while the respondent Ericsson was represented by Wim Maas of Taylor Wessing N.V., Eindhoven, Netherlands. The decision concerned the procedural framework for confidentiality in FRAND-related patent infringement proceedings and the appropriate scope of access to sensitive licensing information during the early phases of litigation.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited , Infinix Mobility Limited , Tekpoint GmbH , IRD Distribuce, S.R.O , x-kom GmbH , NTT System S.A. vs Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna et al.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against fifteen Moderna entities regarding European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941. The Defendants filed a statement of defence and a counterclaim for revocation covering both patents. The Court exercised its discretionary power under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure to order the Defendants to split the counterclaim for revocation into two separate actions, one for each patent, due to the different stages of pending EPO opposition proceedings and the capped court fee structure for revocation counterclaims.
FUJIFILM CorporationvsRespondent
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing for its representatives who lacked sufficient English skills. The court granted the request for interpretation but ruled that the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, allowing FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense.
Brita SEvs1) AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o, 2. AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, 3. Gasmarine BV Srl, 4. MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 16.10.2025 KLÄGERIN UND NICHTIGKEITSWIDERBEKLAGTE Brita SE, gesetzlich vertreten durch den Vorstand Markus Hankammer, Stefan Rudolf Jonitz und Dr. Rüdiger Kraege, Heinz-Hankammer-Straße 1, 652
Leap Tools Inc.vsWizart Inc. a. o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 859 566, in which the court permitted alternative service of the Statement of claim on Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure. After two failed attempts to serve Wizart LLC at its original Wilmington, Delaware address and at the registered agent's address in Newark, the court authorized service on the CEO at his business address in Gdańsk, Poland, finding that such service was permissible under Polish law.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co.,Ltd.vsCybex GmbH a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court upheld a judge-rapporteur's order denying the claimant's application for leave to change its claim to add an auxiliary request asserting infringement by equivalence for additional patent features. The defendants had requested a panel review under R. 333 RoP, arguing the reasoning was disadvantageous to them. The panel found the review admissible but rejected it on the merits, confirming that extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 did not alter the nature or scope of the dispute.
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.