UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1130/2026

Apr 1, 2026·EP3076673 · DECODING AND ENCODING OF PICTURES OF A VIDEO SEQUENCE

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Milan LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology
Language
English
First decided
Jun 17, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Milan LDLockedLocked
Judge Pierluigi PerrottiLockedLocked
Judge Alima ZanaLockedLocked
Judge Rute LopesLockedLocked
Judge Christoph NorrenbrockLockedLocked

At the UPC: Ericsson Group (53 cases)·Asus Group (46 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 7 other proceedings

UPC CoA 631/2025·UPC CFI 728/2024·UPC CFI 318/2024·UPC CFI 319/2024·UPC APP 12519/2025 and 2 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan LD·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-06-17
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Milan Local Division dismissed Ericsson's application for provisional measures (including a preliminary injunction) for lack of urgency. The Court held that, with the main proceedings on the merits already at an advanced stage, Ericsson had not demonstrated new or escalating factual circumstances that would justify granting interim relief rather than awaiting the final decision. Costs of the provisional-measures proceedings were deferred to the main proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Urgency requirement for provisional measures filed during pending main proceedings (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 206-211 RoP)
    • Burden of proof for new or escalating factual circumstances justifying interim relief late in proceedings
    • Balancing of parties' interests when final decision on the merits is imminent
    • Admissibility of provisional-measures applications at any stage of main proceedings (R. 206.1 RoP)
    • Adequacy of financial-loss aggravation alone as grounds for urgency
Documents
Show all 456 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-06-17Not public
Final Order2026-06-17Public
Decision2026-06-17Not public
Final Order2026-06-17Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-05-11Not public
Order2026-05-05Not public
Order2026-05-05Not public
Receipt2026-04-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-27Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-27Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • ASUSTeK accepted jurisdiction and raised no preliminary objections, indicating no intention to evade proceedings; no detrimental change in ASUSTeK's EU asset situation since proceedings began

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 206-211 RoP; Art. 62 UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Ericsson's application for provisional measures should be granted because the defendant's infringement continued and financial loss increased during proceedings

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 206 RoP

  • Temporal aggravation of economic damage during the proceedings constitutes sufficient urgency for interim relief

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 206 RoP