UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 539/2025

Jun 17, 2025·EP2819131 · Inductor layout for reduced VCO coupling

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as amended)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Lisbon LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy · Semiconductors
Language
English
First decided
May 6, 2026
Last decision
Jul 2, 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.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Lisbon LD—Locked
Judge Rute LopesLockedLocked
Judge Petri RinkinenLockedLocked
Judge Samuel GranataLockedLocked
Judge Johannes Mesa Pascasio—Locked

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

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

This dispute contains 10 other proceedings

UPC CoA 129/2026·UPC CFI 2665/2026·UPC CoA 112/2026·UPC CoA 109/2026·UPC CFI 697/2024 and 5 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Lisbon LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-07-02
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The Lisbon Local Division acknowledged that Ericsson had complied with Rule 118.8 RoP by notifying the Court of its intention to enforce the decision of 6 May 2026, with effect from 15 June 2026. No certified translation was required given the nature of the enforcement orders, and the defendant ASUSTeK raised no objection.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Enforcement notification under R. 118.8 RoP
    • No requirement for certified translation of enforcement orders
  • 2026-05-06
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The Court of First Instance (Lisbon Local Division) found that AsusTek infringed EP 2 819 131 B1 by offering and placing on the market laptops incorporating Intel Wi-Fi modules AX201 (from Q2 2019) and AX211 (from Q3 2021) until the patent's expiry on 15 February 2025 in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden. AsusTek's counterclaim for revocation was dismissed as the patent was found valid in its amended form. Damages were referred to separate proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (9)
    • Legal interest of defendant to pursue revocation counterclaim after patent expiry
    • Added matter
    • Novelty over prior art (Zhou, Jovenin, Einzinger, Bhattacharjee, Taniguchi, Lees)
    • Inventive step
    • Claim interpretation (inductor, substantial symmetry, terminal connection to second loop)
    • Technical infringement of claim 1 features by Intel AX201 and AX211 modules
    • Acts of infringement via domain and sub-domain websites (Art. 25 UPCA)
    • Liability of domain holder for sub-domain content
    • Scope of declaratory infringement for expired patent
Documents
Show all 133 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-08-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-11Not public
Application document Defendant2026-08-11Not public
Case closed2026-07-30Not public
Communication2026-07-07Not public
Decision2026-07-03Not public
Decision2026-07-03Not public
Communication2026-07-03Not public
Decision2026-07-03Not public
Oral procedure closed2026-07-01Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • AsusTek has legal interest in pursuing revocation counterclaim despite patent expiry because the infringement action concerns past acts and potential retroactive damages

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 47(6) UPCA; Art. 65(4) UPCA

  • The patent is valid in its amended form; main claim and auxiliary requests survive challenges of added matter, novelty, and inventive step

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138 EPC; Art. 65 UPCA

  • The accused Intel AX201 and AX211 modules satisfy all features of claim 1 including the inductor with two loops with opposite current directions and terminals connected to the second loop

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; Art. 25 UPCA

  • AsusTek as holder of the domain and sub-domains is responsible for offering and placing products on market via those websites

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; UPC_CoA_534/2024 Belkin/Philips

  • The term 'offer' under Art. 25 UPCA is interpreted broadly in an economic sense, not requiring a legally binding contractual offer or price specification

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA; CoA UPC_CoA_534/2024 and 19/2025
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • AsusTek argued it has no legal interest in revocation because the patent has expired

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 363 RoP

  • AsusTek argued the accused modules do not satisfy feature 1.1B (inductor) because functionality depends on frequency and environment, and images are insufficient to prove inductive function

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

  • AsusTek argued feature 1.2 (substantial symmetry) is not met because current flow is not symmetric about the axis

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

  • AsusTek argued feature 1.5 (terminals connected to second loop) is not met and cannot be confirmed from the provided images

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

  • AsusTek argued it cannot be liable for offers and sales on local sub-domains because it has no operational control over those sub-domains

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

  • AsusTek argued by analogy with the Belkin/Philips decision on directors' liability that lack of operational control over sub-domains should shield it from liability

    RespondentLegal basis: UPC_CoA_534/2024 para. 190