UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 850/2026

Mar 6, 2026·EP4123910: INFORMATION INDICATION METHOD AND RELATED PRODUCT

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Andreas Kramer; Alex Wilson; Ari Laakkonen
Division
Lisbon LD
Judges
Technology
Telecoms · Cellular/SEP · Telecommunications
Language
English
First decided
Apr 7, 2026
Last decision
May 26, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-26
    DismissedInfringement meritsInfringement Action

    The court dismissed Ericsson's application to strike out Transsion's injunctive relief requests under R.360 RoP (action devoid of purpose) and R.361 RoP (manifestly bound to fail). The court found that the action had not become devoid of purpose as no post-filing event had rendered it inadmissible, and that the case was not a clear-cut instance of manifest inadmissibility warranting early dismissal without full examination of the merits.

    Legal issues:R.360 RoP — whether action has become devoid of purpose due to pending cross-licence proceedings at another local divisionR.361 RoP — whether injunctive relief requests are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in lawFRAND licensing obligations and entitlement to injunction by SEP holderRelationship between parallel UPC proceedings (Lisbon LD vs The Hague LD) on cross-licence determinationLis pendens and jurisdiction interactions between local divisions
  • 2026-05-26
    Infringement Action

    The Court ordered claimant Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. to provide security for costs of EUR 100,000 within 21 days, by deposit into the UPC security account or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank. The Court found enforcement of a costs order in China would be unduly burdensome due to the absence of a multilateral recognition framework and established UPC service difficulties in China. Costs of the security application were deferred to the decision on the merits.

    Legal issues:Security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoPEnforceability of UPC costs orders against China-domiciled claimantBurden of proof for security for costs applicationsAppropriate amount of security for costs based on case value and recoverable costs ceilingMeans of providing security (deposit or bank guarantee)
  • 2026-04-07
    Infringement Action

    The Court granted the Defendants' request for alignment of deadlines under R. 9 RoP. The Preliminary Objection is due for all Defendants on 1 May 2026, and the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation are due on 1 July 2026. The request was agreed between the parties to allow a unified representative to act for all Defendants.

    Legal issues:Alignment of deadlines for Preliminary Objection and Statement of Defence under R. 9 RoPExtension of time period to allow unified representation for all Defendants
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.publishOrderDecision.order2026-05-28Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.order2026-05-28Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-27Not public
Order2026-05-27Not public
Receipt2026-05-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-27Not public
Document2026-05-27Not public
Document2026-05-27Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-26Not public
Order2026-05-26Public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-26Not public
Order2026-05-26Public
action.communication.general2026-05-25Not public
Receipt2026-05-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-20Not public
Document2026-05-20Not public
action.communication.general2026-05-18Not public
action.communication.general2026-05-18Not public
action.communication.general2026-05-18Not public
Receipt2026-05-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-15Not public
Receipt2026-05-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-15Not public
Receipt2026-05-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-15Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-15Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-15Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-15Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-15Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-15Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-15Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-04Not public
Order2026-05-04Public
Receipt2026-05-01Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-01Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-01Not public
action.communication.general2026-04-30Not public
Receipt2026-04-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-28Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-28Not public
Receipt2026-04-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-28Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-28Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-28Not public
Receipt2026-04-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-28Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-28Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.order2026-04-07Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-07Not public
Order2026-04-07Public
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-04-07Not public
Receipt2026-04-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-07Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-07Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-03-31Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-03-26Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-03-26Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-03-26Not public
Receipt2026-03-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-16Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-16Not public
acpdf2026-03-13Not public
acpdf2026-03-13Not public
acpdf2026-03-13Not public
acpdf2026-03-13Not public
Receipt2026-03-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-13Not public
Document Claimant2026-03-13Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-03-10Not public
Receipt2026-03-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-06Not public
Fee2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-06Not public
Statement of claim2026-03-06Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The action has not become devoid of purpose under R.360 RoP because no event occurring after the filing of the action has rendered it inadmissible; the cross-licence proceedings at The Hague were filed before this action or have not yet concluded.

    ClaimantLegal basis: R.360 RoP; CoA UPC_CoA_328/2024 (12 May 2025); CoA UPC_CoA_584/2024 (9 January 2025)

  • R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases; this case is not clear-cut as it requires full assessment of facts, law, and evidence and Ericsson's argument relies on a conjectural future outcome.

    ClaimantLegal basis: R.361 RoP; UPC_CoA_265/2024 (18 September 2024, Volkswagen/NST); CD Munich 24 March 2026, 2296/2025
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Transsion's injunctive relief requests should be dismissed as devoid of purpose under R.360 RoP because the cross-licence proceedings at The Hague cover EP 910 and Transsion has acknowledged owing Ericsson a net balancing payment.

    RespondentLegal basis: R.360 RoP

  • Transsion's injunctive relief requests are manifestly inadmissible under R.361 RoP because the patent would be covered by the FRAND cross-licence adjudicated in The Hague, and Transsion has not demonstrated FRAND compliance.

    RespondentLegal basis: R.361 RoP