UPC CFI 850/2026

At the UPC: Transsion Group (31 cases)·Ericsson Group (53 cases)

• 2026-07-14
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: The Lisbon Local Division allowed Transsion's withdrawal of its infringement action against Ericsson, filed before the Statement of Defence and with the defendants' agreement. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, 50% of court fees were reimbursed to the claimant, and the EUR 100,000 security for costs was released and returned to the claimant.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Withdrawal of infringement action under R. 265.1 RoP
  • Reimbursement of 50% court fees under R. 370.9(b) and R. 370.11 RoP
  • Release of security for costs under R. 352.2 RoP
• 2026-05-26
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • R.360 RoP — whether action has become devoid of purpose due to pending cross-licence proceedings at another local division
  • R.361 RoP — whether injunctive relief requests are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law
  • FRAND licensing obligations and entitlement to injunction by SEP holder
  • Relationship between parallel UPC proceedings (Lisbon LD vs The Hague LD) on cross-licence determination
  • Lis pendens and jurisdiction interactions between local divisions
• 2026-05-26
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP
  • Enforceability of UPC costs orders against China-domiciled claimant
  • Burden of proof for security for costs applications
  • Appropriate amount of security for costs based on case value and recoverable costs ceiling
  • Means of providing security (deposit or bank guarantee)
• 2026-04-07
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (2)

  • Alignment of deadlines for Preliminary Objection and Statement of Defence under R. 9 RoP
  • Extension of time period to allow unified representation for all Defendants