UPC CFI 301/2025

At the UPC: Orange SA (3 cases)·HMD Global Oy (14 cases)

• 2026-08-19
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: The Paris Local Division found that Orange failed to prove that HMD's Android smartphones and tablets infringe EP 2 345 029 (audio decoding), because the accused USAC/FAC decoding mechanism transmits additional transition information, which falls outside the scope of claims 1 and 6 as the patent teaches avoiding such additional data transmission. The infringement action was dismissed. Because HMD's counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_713/2025) was made conditional on a finding of infringement, and infringement was not found, the Court did not decide the counterclaim, the exhaustion objection, the FRAND defence, or proportionality. Orange was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings under an agreement between the parties, so no separate costs decision was required.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Conditional counterclaim for revocation made contingent on a finding of infringement
  • Burden of proof of infringement
  • Claim construction of an audio transform/CELP transition decoding method (standard-essential patent, USAC)
• 2026-04-10
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: The Judge-Rapporteur allowed Orange SA to file a supplementary written response on the FRAND defence (pages 14-86 of its 17 March 2026 application) in the interests of fairness and adversarial proceedings. HMD's subsidiary request to respond further to the FRAND defence was denied. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity was made.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • admissibility of late-filed facts and arguments under R.9.2 RoP
  • right to final reply on FRAND defence under R.36 RoP
  • fairness and adversarial proceedings principle (RoP preamble point 2)
  • scope of front-loaded procedure in FRAND defence context