UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics2,692Cases1,785Decisions257Judges1,851Parties459Firms

Parties

Filing frequency, side mix, win records, firms typically retained — by corporate group or standalone party.

INFINIX MOBILITY LIMITED

Operating company
Clear and return to cohort view
Total cases
18
Claimant-side
0
Respondent-side
18
Win rate
0%
Top opponents
  • Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)5
  • Access Advance LLC5
  • Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.2
  • NEC Corporation2
  • InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.1
Top firms
  • BARDEHLE PAGENBERG3
  • Powell Gilbert LLP1
Recent cases
  • 2025-11-29UPC_CFI_1793/2025—Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
  • 2025-11-29UPC_CFI_1791/2025—Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
  • 2025-11-24UPC_CFI_1570/2025—Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
  • 2025-11-13UPC_CFI_1571/2025—Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
  • 2025-11-13UPC_CFI_1568/2025—Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
  • 2025-09-24UPC_CFI_901/2025—InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
  • 2025-09-24UPC_CFI_900/2025—InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
  • 2025-08-27UPC_APP_35161/2025—Access Advance LLC v NEC Corporation
  • 2025-08-27UPC_APP_35163/2025—Access Advance LLC v Sun Patent Trust
  • 2025-08-27UPC_APP_35160/2025—Access Advance LLC v NEC Corporation
  • 2025-08-27UPC_APP_35169/2025—Access Advance LLC v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
  • 2025-08-27UPC_APP_35167/2025—Access Advance LLC v Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)
  • 2025-07-25UPC_CFI_683/2025WithdrawnHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
  • 2025-07-14UPC_CFI_648/2025WithdrawnElectronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
  • 2025-06-20UPC_CFI_546/2025—Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v Tekpoint GmbH