Executive Summary
Ericsson sought a preliminary injunction against AsusTek, Digital River, and Arvato regarding the alleged infringement of EP 2 819 131 B1 by laptops containing specific Intel Wi-Fi modules. The UPC Local Division in Lisbon ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. While the court affirmed that offering products via an internet domain constitutes infringement, it found that Ericsson failed to meet the cumulative requirements necessary to grant the preliminary injunction.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court clarified several procedural and substantive points, including that arguments against territorial competence based on lack of infringement are irrelevant to jurisdictional challenges. Furthermore, it established that merely owning an internet domain constitutes infringement under Art 25(a) UPCA if infringing products are offered or sold through it.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Lisbon (PT) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson vs ASUSTek Computer Inc., Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
ALD France S.A.SvsNanoval GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC decision, the Central Division addressed a challenge to the standing of the claimant in a revocation action. The court firmly established that for an independent interest in revocation proceedings, the claimant's own business activity is paramount, regardless of corporate group structures or control relationships. This ruling clarifies the scope of 'party identity' under EPC Art. 33(4) within the UPC framework, rejecting arguments based solely on parent-subsidiary links.
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsMediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a request for confidentiality regarding trade secrets arising from license negotiations between Huawei and MediaTek. The court successfully granted an order classifying specific documents as confidential information. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within UPC proceedings by applying existing rules analogously to ensure secrecy.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbHvsXSYS Italia S.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses complex jurisdictional questions regarding the temporal scope of the UPCA Agreement, specifically concerning acts occurring before its entry into force or during a patent's opt-out period. The court affirmed that the UPC possesses competence over these historical infringement acts, provided the action is lodged while the patent is under exclusive jurisdiction. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners navigating transitional periods and opting out of the UPC system.
Ona Patents SLvsGoogle Ireland Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf issued a confidentiality order concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, Ona Patents SL, restricting access to sensitive exhibits and documents. Crucially, the court also prevented the disclosure of this confidential information to parallel national proceedings, setting a strong precedent for maintaining secrecy within UPC litigation.
Gowling WLGvsBoehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a legal representative firm, seeking public access to documents from pending infringement proceedings (Boehringer v. Zentiva). The court established strict criteria for such requests, emphasizing that they must be highly specified and not based on relevance criteria set by the applicant. While acknowledging the general interest in transparency, the Court ultimately granted limited access only to specific redacted pleadings, balancing this against the need to protect sensitive commercial information.
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.