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
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.