UPC CFI 757/2024

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

• 2026-08-24
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: In a post-judgment order in the Ericsson v AsusTek infringement action, the Lisbon Local Division (Judge-rapporteur Rute Lopes) dismissed AsusTek's 13 August 2026 application for a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP (applied by analogy), which sought to restrict how Ericsson could use information AsusTek must disclose under the 6 May 2026 merits decision. The Court held the request was filed too late, more than three months after the merits decision and after the main proceedings' administrative closure, without justification, and that, even if admissible, restricting the purpose for which disclosed information may be used (rather than restricting access to it) falls outside the R.262A confidentiality regime and should have been raised during the main proceedings.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • post-judgment application for a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP applied by analogy to a court-ordered disclosure of information
  • timeliness of a confidentiality request first raised after the main proceedings on the merits closed
  • distinction between restricting access to confidential information (within R.262A) and restricting the purpose for which disclosed information may be used (a substantive-law matter outside the confidentiality regime)
• 2026-07-29
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: The Lisbon Local Division confirmed under R. 365.1 RoP the costs settlement the parties had submitted on 10 March 2026, holding that the agreement fixed the costs payable rather than merely a recoverable-costs ceiling, that the Court retained jurisdiction to confirm it after the merits decision, and that no time limit barred the request. AsusTek was ordered to pay EUR 150,000 to Ericsson under clause C, enforceable as a final decision within one week of service.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • confirmation of a settlement under R. 365.1 RoP
  • interpretation of a costs agreement as fixing costs rather than a recoverable-costs ceiling
  • jurisdiction to confirm a settlement after the decision on the merits
  • absence of a time limit for requesting confirmation
  • enforceability and deadline for payment under R. 118.8 RoP
• 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
• 2025-07-28
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: Lisbon Local Division scheduling order in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. ASUSTek Computer Inc. (EP 2 819 131 B1). Both parties agreed on appointment of a technically qualified judge and joint hearing of infringement and revocation counterclaim. Oral hearing scheduled for 25 March 2026. The court found no need to rule on alignment of reply deadlines as service of the SoD and CCR was established.

  Show the legal issues (2)

  • Joint hearing of infringement and counterclaim for revocation (R. 28, 33, 37 RoP)
  • Scheduling and alignment of deadlines