UPC_CFI_11568/2025; UPC_CFI_1791/2025; UPC_CFI_1793/2025 – Ericsson v Transsion

Court
Local Division The Hague
Date
Sector
Electronics/SEP
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Case management hearing Facts 1. Ericsson sues 10 companies for patent infringement with respect to three patents in three cases. 2. Defendants 8 and 9 were served late and still have time to file their Statement of Defence. 3. In many countries, parallel proceedings have been filed against Transsion. 4. In the UPC proceedings before the The Hague Local Division, Ericsson only asks for a FRAND declaration. The JR 1. The JR suggests that the parties agree on a confidentiality regime with respect to the information (license agreements with third parties) for all UPC proceedings that Ericsson has filed and for which it asks a confidentiality regime. 2. If no agreement can be reached, Transsion has to respond to Ericson’s request before 10 April 2026. Comment 1. An order of 19 March 2026 being published on 8 May 2026 is a bit strange. In normal circumstances, we would never have seen this order as the UPC – with its strange publication strategy – would not have published it on 8 May but amongst the other decisions of 19 March 2026. 2. Apparently, the Local Division The Hague has now started assigning decisions an additional date, namely the date of publication. If all Local Divisions do so, we would not have to go through all previous decisions every week, in order to see if a new decision has been (late) published. We currently do so as we want to be complete, so that the reader does not miss any decision. 3. In this case, Ericsson only asks the Court to make a declaration on what the amount for a FRAND license has to be. It is a so-called rate setting procedure initiated by the holder of standard essential patents. 4. The case is still at a very early stage. Together with its Statement of Claim, Ericsson submitted license agreements with third parties who have agreed that these can be disclosed to the defendants’ representatives on an attorneys’-eyes-only basis. Ericsson appears to be seeking the defendants’ agreement on that, as under the Rules of Procedure at least one person of the defendant should get access. 5. The JR has given some suggestions for such an agreement but the Court will decide if no agreement is reached before a certain date. 6. In my opinion, the interesting aspect is the rate-setting, and if and how the Court is going to handle that. We will see!

Full Decision Text

1 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 19/03/2026 regarding: case management hearing Claimant: 1) Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista 164 83 Stockholm Sweden “Claimant” or “Ericsson” represented by Wim Maas Defendants: 1) Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd Unit 1, Floor 24, Chuanyin Building, No.8, Xianyuan Road, Xili Sub-district, Nanshan District 518000 Shenzhen City China represented by Andreas Kramer 2) Tecno Mobile Limited Flat N, 16/F., Block B, Universal Industrial Centre, 19- 25 Shan Mei Street, Fotan, New Territories Hong Kong Hong Kong, China represented by Andreas Kramer 3) Itel Mobile Limited Flat N, 16/F., Block B, Universal Industrial Centre, 19- 25 Shan Mei Street, Fotan, New Territories Hong Kong Hong Kong, China represented by Andreas Kramer 4) Infinix Mobility Limited Flat N, 16/F., Block B, Universal Industrial Centre, 19- 25 Shan Mei Street, Fotan, New Territories Hong Kong represented by Andreas Kramer The Hague - Local Division UPC-CFI-0001568/2025 UPC-CFI-0001791/2025 UPC-CFI-0001793/2025 2 Hong Kong, China 5) Tekpoint GmbH Leopold Ungar Platz 2 1190 Wien Austria represented by Andreas Kramer 6) IRD Distribuce, S.R.O. 3 – Vinohrady, nám. Jiřího z Poděbrad 1658/11 13000 Prague Czechia Not represented 7) x-kom GmbH Cottbus Charlottenstraße 34 01099 Dresden Germany Not represented 8) TradeInn Retail Services, S.L C/ Dels Pirineus, 9, Nave 1B, Polígono Industrial Celrà 17460 Girona Spain Not represented 9) Egenta s.r.o. Varšavská 715/36, Vinohrady 120 00 Prague Czechia Not represented 10) NTT System S.A. Trakt Brzeski 89, Zakręt, Warszawa-Wesoła, Mazoweickie 0555-007 Wiazowna Poland represented by Andreas Kramer Collectively: “Defendants” PATENTS AT ISSUE: EP 2 712 236 B1 (case 1568/2025) EP 3 836 631 B1 (case 1791/2025) EP 3 245 744 B1 (case 1793/2025) all of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) DECIDING JUDGE: This order is issued by the judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English Subject-matter of the proceedings: Infringement action 3 SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE 1. On 5 March 2026, the JR held a case management hearing (CMH) by VC in which the following persons participated: a. On behalf of Ericsson: b. On behalf of the Defendants 1-7 and 10 (the “Transsion defendants”): • Andreas Kramer UPC Representative Powell Gilbert LLP • Alex Wilson UPC Representative Powell Gilbert (Europe) • Ari Laakkonen UPC Representative Powell Gilbert (Europe) • Hannes Obex UPC Representative Powell Gilbert LLP c. From the court: In addition to the JR Kokke, the other members of the panel (Brinkman and Granata) 2. The CMH was conducted with closed doors. Recordings were made. 3. The following outcomes are worth mentioning: - defendants 8 and 9, although the SoC was served on them (on 19/1 and 4/2 respectively), are not represented. Deadlines for filing their SoD expire three months after service. - Parallel proceedings: almost simultaneously with the present cases, Ericsson also filed actions against at least Defendant 1 (“Transsion”) in many other jurisdictions. Transsion is overwhelmed by the logistics involved in coordination all these actions. All proceedings are at the starting stage. Ericsson intentionally only request a FRAND declaration in the UPC proceedings pending before the LD The Hague. - Concerning the parallel UPC proceedings pending in Mannheim and Paris: in Paris a provisional confidentiality order was issued, similar to The Hague. 4 - Frand defence? The representatives for the Transsion defendants do not know yet whether a FRAND defence will be raised or even whether a counterclaim will be filed. Transsion has not instructed them yet to that effect (and is busy with many proceedings worldwide). - Negotiations: nothing happening/no developments - Confidentiality regime: A preliminary confidentiality order of 13 February 2026 is in force, provisionally granting Transsion defendants’ representatives access to information designated as (highly) confidential by Ericsson. The parties agree that a same confidentiality regime for all UPC proceedings is preferable. On the contents of such regime there is no agreement and Transsion defendants are of the opinion that no agreement will be reached between the parties and a court order shall be necessary (so no EEO regime by agreement). Ericsson will discuss this with the 3rd party-licensees who had agreed to disclosure of licenses with them in these proceedings on EEO terms. Ericsson will also submit a new R.262A/262.2 request to reflect i.a. recent case law, shortly after the CMH (to replace the amended version submitted the day before the CMH; in the meantime such request was uploaded on 9 March 2026). Transsion defendants’ representatives indicate that in view of all worldwide actions, they are not in a position to comment on the confidentiality regime before 10 April 2026. The JR pointed out that access to the confidential information submitted by Ericsson, including licenses with third parties, continues to be restricted to the Transsion defendants’ representatives only until an order deciding otherwise is issued. The Transsion defendants, i.e. any employees/natural persons, cannot access such information, including the licences. The JR suggested the parties to consider the possibility of a phased confidentiality regime, starting with a limited confidentiality club which can be extended when the information asserted to be confidential indeed proves to be relevant for deciding the case. ORDER The court, I. The case will proceed according to the RoP; II. Parties are invited to submit an agreement on a confidentiality regime, including a confidentiality club in the absence whereof the Transsion defendants can respond to the confidentiality request on or before 10 April 2026.

Key Holdings

  • The UPC Local Division The Hague is handling a FRAND rate-setting procedure initiated by an SEP holder.
  • The case is at an early stage, focusing on establishing a confidentiality regime for third-party license agreements.
  • The Judge Rapporteur (JR) suggested parties agree on a confidentiality regime, with the Court to decide if no agreement is reached.
  • The analysis highlights the UPC's publication strategy for procedural orders and the potential for assigning publication dates.
  • The case involves multiple defendants and parallel infringement proceedings.

Tags

  • Case Management
  • FRAND
  • Rate Setting
  • Confidentiality
  • Standard Essential Patents
  • Procedural Order
  • Publication Strategy

Related Cases

View original decision