Parties
Filing frequency, side mix, win records, firms typically retained — by corporate group or standalone party.
INFINIX MOBILITY LIMITED
Operating companyTotal 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_1793/2025The Hague LD—Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
- 2025-11-29UPC_CFI_1791/2025The Hague LD—Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
- 2025-11-24UPC_CFI_1570/2025Mannheim LD—Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
- 2025-11-13UPC_CFI_1571/2025Paris CD—Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
- 2025-11-13UPC_CFI_1568/2025The Hague LD—Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
- 2025-09-24UPC_CFI_901/2025Munich LD—InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
- 2025-09-24UPC_CFI_900/2025Munich LD—InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
- 2025-08-27UPC_APP_35161/2025Mannheim LD—Access Advance LLC v NEC Corporation
- 2025-08-27UPC_APP_35163/2025Mannheim LD—Access Advance LLC v Sun Patent Trust
- 2025-08-27UPC_APP_35160/2025Mannheim LD—Access Advance LLC v NEC Corporation
- 2025-08-27UPC_APP_35169/2025Mannheim LD—Access Advance LLC v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
- 2025-08-27UPC_APP_35167/2025Dusseldorf LD—Access Advance LLC v Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)
- 2025-07-25UPC_CFI_683/2025Mannheim LDWithdrawnHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
- 2025-07-14UPC_CFI_648/2025Dusseldorf LDWithdrawnElectronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
- 2025-06-20UPC_CFI_546/2025Munich LD—Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v Tekpoint GmbH