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
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
Interim procedure closed2026-07-01Not public
Receipt2026-06-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-15Not public
Application document Defendant2026-06-15Not public
Receipt2026-06-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-15Not public
Application document Defendant2026-06-15Not public
Receipt2026-06-08Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-08Not public
Application document Claimant2026-06-08Not public
Receipt2026-03-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-23Not public
Document Defendant2026-03-23Not public
Document Defendant2026-03-23Not public
Receipt2026-03-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-23Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-23Not public
Document Defendant2026-03-23Not public
Receipt2026-03-10Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-10Not public
Document2026-03-10Not public
Publication2026-02-25Not public
Interim procedure opened2026-01-21Not public
Written procedure closed2026-01-21Not public
Order2026-01-21Not public
Order2026-01-21Public
Receipt2026-01-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-21Not public
Other document Claimant2026-01-21Not public
Communication2026-01-20Not public
Receipt2026-01-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-19Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-19Not public
Application document Claimant2026-01-19Not public
Receipt2026-01-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-06Not public
Other document Claimant2026-01-06Not public
Receipt2025-12-29Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-29Not public
Statement of rejoinder2025-12-29Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-29Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-27Not public
Counterclaim rejoinder2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-11-27Not public
Receipt2025-11-27Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-27Not public
Counterclaim reply2025-10-27Not public
Exhibit2025-10-27Not public
Exhibit2025-10-27Not public
Exhibit2025-10-27Not public
Exhibit2025-10-27Not public
Receipt2025-10-27Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-09-01Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-09-01Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-08-28Not public
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-08-27Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-08-27Not public
Annex F7 - Auxiliary Request 72025-08-26Not public
2025-08-26 - Reply to SOD and Defence to CC - EP 131 - Final version - signed2025-08-26Not public
Annex F5 - Auxiliary Request 52025-08-26Not public
Annex F3 - Auxiliary Request 32025-08-26Not public
2025-08-26 - Application to amend a patent - EP 131 - Signed WM2025-08-26Not public
Annex F4 - Auxiliary Request 42025-08-26Not public
Annex F6 - Auxiliary Request 62025-08-26Not public
Annex F2 - Auxiliary Request 22025-08-26Not public
Annex F1 - Auxiliary Request 12025-08-26Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-08-26Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-08-26Not public
Annex E4 - English machine translation of UPC_CFI_363.2023 LD Dusseldorf decision of 10 October 20242025-08-26Not public
Annex E1 - Ericssons Reply to the EPO dated 10 September 2018 (Annex E11 to the PI proceedings)2025-08-26Not public
Annex E3 - ASUSTeKs Financial Report of 2025 Q1 (English)2025-08-26Not public
Annex F1 - Auxiliary Request 12025-08-26Not public
2025-08-26 - Reply to SOD and Defence to CC - EP 131 - Final version - signed2025-08-26Not public
Annex E2 - Ericssons Response EPO dated 9 June 2015 (Annex E10 to the PI proceedings)2025-08-26Not public
Annex F4 - Auxiliary Request 42025-08-26Not public
Annex F2 - Auxiliary Request 22025-08-26Not public
Annex F6 - Auxiliary Request 62025-08-26Not public
Annex F5 - Auxiliary Request 52025-08-26Not public
Annex F7 - Auxiliary Request 72025-08-26Not public
Annex F3 - Auxiliary Request 32025-08-26Not public
Application-RoP2932025-08-13Not public
Application (ROP 293)2025-08-13Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-07-14Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-07-14Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-07-14Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-07-14Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-07-14Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-07-09Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-08Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-02Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-02Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-02Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-02Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-02Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-02Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-01Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-06-30Not public
EPO-Request-for-case-pending2025-06-26Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-06-26Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-06-18Not public
Exhibit ASU-022025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-162025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-082025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-052025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-09.B2025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-172025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-09.A2025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-132025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-112025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-142025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-182025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-012025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-122025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-072025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-192025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-032025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-102025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-062025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-152025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-042025-06-17Not public
Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation2025-06-17Not 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