Executive Summary
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Ericsson and Asustek sets the stage for a complex patent dispute. The parties have agreed to proceed with both an infringement action by Ericsson and a counterclaim for revocation by Asustek. The Court has scheduled the interim conference and the main oral hearing, indicating that the case is moving forward toward substantive arguments.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
This order primarily manages the procedural timeline of the case. The parties agreed on key steps, including the appointment of a Technically Qualified Judge and the joint hearing of infringement and revocation claims. The Court set specific dates for the interim conference (January 22, 2026) and the oral hearing (March 25, 2026).
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 is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.PvsLAMA FRANCE
In a significant case involving HPDC and LAMA, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed simultaneous requests to withdraw claims in an ongoing infringement and revocation dispute. Following mutual agreements and the absence of final judgments, the court granted both parties' withdrawals. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing cases to be closed amicably before a definitive ruling is reached.
Ona Patents SLvsApple Inc.
In a complex infringement and revocation action involving Ona Patents SL against Apple Inc., the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a critical Procedural Order on May 6, 2025. The ruling focused not on the merits of the patent dispute but on establishing strict confidentiality protocols for sensitive information submitted during the proceedings. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for managing trade secrets and proprietary data within high-stakes litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsMediaTek, Inc.
In a case concerning the infringement of EP 4 142 215, Huawei Technologies sought protective measures for its confidential business secrets against MediaTek. The UPC Local Division Munich ruled favorably, classifying specific documents as confidential and imposing strict duties of secrecy on all participants in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the robust protection available under the UPC framework for trade secrets during litigation, ensuring that sensitive information is not disclosed to third parties or the public.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATIONvsMERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by the Defendants to stay infringement proceedings pending the outcome of an opposition filed at the EPO. The Court rejected the application, emphasizing that the primary legal basis for such a stay requires the expectation of a rapid final decision from the EPO. Given the likelihood of appeals following the opposition, the court determined that the condition for staying the case was not met, allowing the infringement action to proceed.
ITCiCo Spain S.L.vsBayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding cost allocation following a default judgment in a revocation action. The applicant sought to recover costs related to their attempt to set aside the initial default ruling. The Court ruled that because setting aside a default is an internal procedural remedy, these specific costs should not be determined separately but must be integrated into the final cost assessment of the main proceedings.
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.