Short Summary
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. in the Milan Local Division, seeking an injunction based on EP 3 076 673 B1 relating to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology. The application was filed during ongoing main proceedings on the merits that had commenced in June 2024. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, finding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new or supervening circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were nearing their final stages.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an application for provisional measures filed by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. before the Milan Local Division of the Court of First Instance (UPC CFI no. 1130/2026), related to main proceedings on the merits (UPC CFI no. 319/2024 for infringement and no. 728/2024 for counterclaim for revocation).
Ericsson is the proprietor of EP 3 076 673 B1, entitled "Decoding and encoding of pictures of a video sequence," validated in Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Romania. Ericsson alleged that ASUSTeK's laptops, desktops, and chromebook computers implementing the HEVC/H.265 standard infringed the patent.
On 1 April 2026, Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures, which had initially been submitted on 20 March 2026 as an internal application related to the main proceedings. Ericsson argued urgency based on three grounds: (i) delay of the main proceedings, which had been initiated on 14 June 2024 with the oral hearing scheduled for 24-25 September 2026; (ii) recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK in similar cases (Nokia v. ASUSTeK and Wilus v. ASUSTeK at Landgericht München), where ASUSTeK was found to be an unwilling licensee with no substantial EU assets; and (iii) ASUSTeK's announcement on 17 March 2026 of new infringing products compliant with HEVC/H.265.
The defendants disputed that the requirements for provisional measures were met, arguing that Ericsson had not demonstrated urgency or a risk of irreparable harm.
The Court addressed the legal framework for provisional measures filed during ongoing main proceedings. It held that while such applications are admissible under R. 206.1 RoP, the requirements of urgency and balancing of interests take on more specific meaning when filed during the final stages of proceedings on the merits. The applicant must demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances indicating an objective deterioration of the existing situation, beyond mere temporal aggravation of financial loss.
The Court found that Ericsson failed to establish urgency. Regarding the delay in proceedings, the Court noted that the timeline was consistent with the complexity of the case and that Ericsson had not previously sought interim relief. Regarding the German proceedings, the Court found these were not new circumstances as they predated the application and concerned different patents. Regarding the launch of new products, the Court found this was a normal business activity and did not constitute a significant change in circumstances. The Court also noted that ASUSTeK had accepted jurisdiction and expressed interest in a RAND license, showing no intention to evade proceedings.
The Court dismissed the application for provisional measures for lack of urgency, finding that the cumulative conditions for granting preliminary measures were not met. The Court also found no need to adjudicate on ASUSTeK's application under R. 262.2 RoP regarding public access to information. Costs were reserved for determination in the main proceedings. The order was issued on 17 June 2026, with a 15-day appeal period.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Milan Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Wim Maas and David Mulder, at Taylor Wessing N.V., Parnassus vs increase in financial loss. Once infringement has commenced,, economic damage during the proceedings - without the injured is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.vsSichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application under Rule 353 RoP seeking rectification of a decision issued on 26.5.2026 in proceedings concerning EP 3 519 207 B1 (motorcycles tyre). Pirelli argued that the decision erroneously stated it had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023, which was later withdrawn on 26.11.2024, when in fact it had never filed any opt-out. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from page 9 of the decision.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsRespondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation, plaintiff in a standard-essential patent infringement action concerning EP 3 096 315, sought a court production order directed against itself to compel the disclosure of two specific license agreements. The plaintiff argued that confidentiality clauses in those agreements prevented voluntary production, and that its license partners had either failed to respond or refused consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order providing fundamental guidance on the requirements for production orders in standard-essential patent disputes, following the Reporting Judge's prior directions of March 19, 2024 and the plaintiff's responsive statement of April 15, 2024.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsXiaomi Inc. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163. The present order addressed Panasonic's application for document production against itself, accompanied by a request for confidentiality protection. The court issued a final consolidated confidentiality order, accepting most of the defendants' requested modifications to the provisional order, including clarifying the scope of legal representatives, expanding access to three named reliable persons, removing the return/destruction obligation, and setting a penalty of up to 100,000 EUR per culpable violation.
AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.AvsProgress Maschinen & Automation AG
This case concerns an application by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (PMA) to access an expert report generated following ex parte evidence preservation and inspection orders against AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.a. The inspection orders, granted in September 2023 in connection with alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2726230, were executed in October 2023, but the resulting expert reports were kept in sealed envelopes. PMA sought access to the reports to evaluate whether to commence proceedings on the merits, arguing that confidentiality obligations prevented its representatives from disclosing the findings.
UPC Decision UPC-001561vsRespondent
UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_5/2024 PR_APL_189/2024 ORDER of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 March 2024 pursuant to Rule 229.5 RoP HAEDNOTE Under Rule 220.2 RoP an appeal from an order without leave is inadmissible from the outset and, as
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.