UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 1291/2026

Apr 16, 2026·EP3799333 +3 more: ALLOCATION OF PREAMBLE SEQUENCES

SEP (unclear)
Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional Measures
Parties
Division
Mannheim LD
Judges
Technology
Telecommunications
Language
German
First decided
Apr 20, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-04-20
    PI grantedPreliminary injunctionApplication for provisional measures

    The UPC Local Division Mannheim granted an ex parte Anti-Anti Suit Injunction (AASI) prohibiting the respondents (Geely entities) from pursuing or maintaining their application before the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court for an 'Interim Licence' or equivalent measure that would prevent the claimants (Nokia entities) from enforcing their European patents before the UPC. The respondents were ordered to withdraw the interim licence application within 24 hours of service, subject to a maximum penalty of EUR 50,000,000 and an additional EUR 500,000 per day of continued non-compliance. The order is immediately enforceable but lapses if claimants do not provide security of EUR 600,000 within 20 days.

    Legal issues:Jurisdiction of UPC Local Division Mannheim to issue an Anti-Anti Suit Injunction (AASI) under Art. 31, 32(1)(c) UPCAWhether an interim licence application before a Chinese court constitutes an anti-suit injunction in substance affecting UPC patent enforcementRight of patent holders to access courts and enforce patents as an inherent aspect of patent rights (Art. 47 EU Charter, Art. 6 ECHR)Comity and non-interference with foreign jurisdictions' adjudicative sovereigntyUrgency and balance of interests justifying ex parte provisional measures under Art. 62(2) UPCA, R. 211.3 RoPSecurity for costs obligation under Art. 62(5), 60(7) UPCA, R. 211.5 RoPApplication of EU competition law (Art. 101, 102 TFEU) to SEP/FRAND disputes before the UPCWTO ruling (WT/DS611/ARB25) on China's anti-suit injunction policy and TRIPS complianceAstreinte/penalty payments under R. 354.3 RoP for non-compliance with provisional measuresObligation to set deadline for main proceedings under R. 213.1 RoPNotification of EU Commission under Art. 6 and 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-05-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-28Not public
Receipt2026-05-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-28Not public
Application document Defendant2026-05-28Not public
Application document Defendant2026-05-28Not public
Receipt2026-05-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-27Not public
Receipt2026-05-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-27Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-27Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-27Not public
Receipt2026-05-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-20Not public
Application document Defendant2026-05-20Not public
Receipt2026-05-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-19Not public
Further pleadings2026-05-19Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-19Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-19Not public
Receipt2026-05-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-19Not public
Application document Applicant2026-05-19Not public
Other Documents2026-04-24Public
action.communication.general2026-04-22Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-04-22Not public
Receipt2026-04-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-21Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-21Not public
Further pleadings2026-04-21Not public
Receipt2026-04-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-21Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-21Not public
Further pleadings2026-04-21Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-04-20Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-04-20Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-20Not public
Order2026-04-20Public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-20Not public
Order2026-04-20Public
Receipt2026-04-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-16Not public
Fee2026-04-16Not public
Application for provisional measures2026-04-16Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-16Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-16Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-16Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-16Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The UPC has jurisdiction under Art. 31, 32(1)(c) UPCA as the locus of the threatened infringement of patent rights is within the UPC's jurisdiction; the respondents' application before the Chinese court would effectively prevent claimants from enforcing UPC-jurisdictional patents before the UPC Local Divisions Mannheim and Munich.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 31, 32(1)(a)(c), 33(1)(a) UPCA; Art. 7(2), 71b No. 2 Brussels Ia Regulation

  • The right to enforce patents in court proceedings is inherent in the patent right itself, encompassing both substantive and procedural enforceability; a measure preventing exercise of this right constitutes an interference with the patent owner's property rights.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 ff. UPCA; Art. 47(1)(2) EU Charter; Art. 17(2) EU Charter; Art. 6 ECHR

  • The Geely 'Interim Licence' application before the Chinese court is in substance an anti-suit injunction aimed at preventing Nokia from obtaining injunctions in foreign forums including the UPC, evidenced by the list of non-confidential exhibits (AR3, Group 3 Evidence) explicitly referencing prevention of threatened injunctions in other jurisdictions.

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

  • The threatened application is abusive and contrary to principles of comity and EU acquis communautaire; no justified reason exists for a worldwide interim licence to protect the Chinese rate-setting proceedings, especially since Nokia's application expressly does not challenge the main rate-setting proceedings.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 101, 102 TFEU; Art. 20 UPCA; EuGH BSH/Electrolux (25 February 2025) Rn. 71, 73

  • Urgency is established because the Hangzhou court had scheduled a hearing on the interim licence application for 23 April 2026, immediately threatening enforcement before the UPC proceedings could be concluded; an ex parte order was justified to prevent irreparable harm from delay caused by prior hearing of the respondents.

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 206.3, 209(c), 212.1 RoP; Art. 62(2) UPCA

  • The daily penalty of up to EUR 1,000,000 RMB (~EUR 124,000) potentially imposed by the Chinese court in case of non-compliance with a preservation order constitutes a serious and immediate threat justifying the provisional measure, particularly as such orders are known to be enforced by the Chinese Supreme People's Court.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 354.3 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The pending parallel proceedings before the Landgericht München I create lis pendens or otherwise preclude UPC jurisdiction over the AASI.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 33 UPCA