UPC CFI 713/2025

At the UPC: HMD Global Oy (14 cases)·Orange SA (3 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)
• 2026-06-16
  Counterclaim for revocationPublic

  Summary: Following an interim conference under R. 105.5 RoP, the judge-rapporteur set the value of the infringement action (UPC_CFI_301/2025) and the counterclaim (UPC_CFI_713/2025) each at 1.5 million euros, for a total of 3 million euros. The parties were ordered to submit a consolidated document of their respective requests and confirm their costs agreement by 30 June 2026.

  Show the legal issues (6)

  • Case value determination (R. 104(i) RoP)
  • Recoverable costs ceiling agreement (R. 104(j)(k) RoP)
  • Oral hearing structure: order of validity vs. infringement
  • Conditional counterclaim for revocation (R. 263.3 RoP)
  • Confidentiality of exhaustion and FRAND defence materials
  • Claim construction and prior art impact on infringement