UPC_CFI_1568/2025; UPC_CFI_1791/2025; UPC_CFI_1793/2025 – Ericsson v Transsion

Court
Local Division The Hague
Date
Outcome
Settled
Sector
Electronics/SEP
Decision Type
SETTLEMENT

Expert Commentary

Settlement Facts 1. The claimant requests withdrawal of the three proceedings and states that no decision on the costs is necessary except for a return of court fees. 2. The application was not signed by the defendants. At the invitation of the Court all defendants agreed except one. The Court stated, unless that defendant responded before 20 August, it would be assumed that it agreed. Comment 1. In the event of a counterclaim for revocation, it is preferable that the parties file a withdrawal request together. That saves everyone work. 2. The request for the return of court fees has been made in the same request as it should be!

Full Decision Text

The Hague - Local Division UPC-CFI-1568/2025 UPC-CFI-1791/2025 UPC-CFI-1793/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/8/2026 regarding: withdrawal R. 265 RoP **CLAIMANTS** 1) Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) Torshamnsgatan, 21, Kista, 164 83 Stockholm, Sweden Represented by Wim Maas, David Mulder, Sebastien Versaevel and others (Winston Taylor) **DEFENDANT/S** 1) Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Unit 1, Floor 24, Chuanyin Building, No.8, Xianyuan Road, Xili Sub-district, Nanshan District, 518000, Shenzhen City, People’s Republic of China 2) Tecno Mobile Limited Flat N, 16/F., Block B, Universal Industrial Centre, 19-25 Shan Mei Street, Fotan, New Territories, 00000 Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR 3) Itel Mobile Limited Flat N, 16/F., Block B, Universal Industrial Centre, 19-25 Shan Mei Street, Fotan, New Territories, 00000 Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR 4) Infinix Mobility Limited Flat N, 16/F., Block B, Universal Industrial Centre, 19-25 Shan Mei Street, Fotan, New Territories, 00000 Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR 5) Tekpoint GmbH Leopold Ungar Platz 2, 1190 Wien, Republic of Austria 6) IRD Distribuce, S.R.O., Vinohrady, nám. Jiřího z Poděbrad 1658/11, PSČ, 13000, Prague, Czech Republic 7) x-kom GmbH, Cottbus Charlottenstraße 34, 01099, Dresden, Federal Republic of Germany 8) TradeInn Retail Services, S.L., Dels Pirineus, 9, Nave 1B, Polígono Industrial Celrà 17460, Girona, Kingdom of Spain Not represented 9) Egenta s.r.o., Varšavská 715/36, Vinohrady, 120 00, Prague, Czech Republic Represented by Aglika Ivanova 10) NTT System S.A., Trakt Brzeski 89, Zakręt 0555-007, Warszawa-Wesoła, Wiazowna, Mazowieckie, Republic of Poland Defendants 1)-7) and 10) are represented by Andreas Kramer, Alexander Wilson and Ari Laakkonen (Powell Gilbert) **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 decision is issued by the panel, comprising: Presiding judge Edger Brinkman Judge-rapporteur Margot Kokke Legally Qualified Judge Samuel Granata Technically qualified Judge Christian Keller **LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS:** English **SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS** Infringement actions **GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER:** 1. On 10 July 2026 the Claimant requested the withdrawal of three parallel infringement cases UPC-CFI-1568/2025, UPC-CFI-1791/2025 and UPC-CFI-1793/2025 concerning standard essential patents, pursuant to R.265.1 RoP, informing the Court that it had reached a settlement with all the Defendants. It requests the Court to declare the proceedings closed, informing that no cost decision is needed (apart from reimbursement of Claimant’s court fees). 2. As the application was not signed by the Defendants, the Court asked for confirmation of their agreement to withdraw without a cost decision. On 19 August 2026, the Court added that if no response was received by 20 August 2026, the Defendants would be assumed to have agreed, and a decision to withdraw would be issued. Defendants 1 to 7 and 10 (the 'Transsion Defendants') confirmed on 19 August 2026 that they had agreed with the Claimant that each party should bear its own costs, and that they endorsed the Claimant's application to withdraw each action. Defendant 9 did not respond and is thus assumed to agree. Consequently, the withdrawal will be allowed as requested. 3. The Claimant’s requests for reimbursement of the court fees, according to Rule 370.9(b) RoP, are admissible in the three cases in question. These requests were filed before the closure of the written procedures. According to case law of the Court of Appeal, the Rules of Procedure as amended on 1 January 2026 apply, because the applications (for withdrawal and reimbursement) were filed in 2026. According to the relevant rule, the Claimant is entitled to reimbursement of 50% of the court fees. However, the Court deems the situation exceptional in these cases and will decrease the reimbursement payable to 25% (R.370.9(e) RoP). This is due to the procedural behaviour of the Claimant, in particular the filing of several parallel procedures at different divisions within the UPC, requesting The Hague to take the lead on FRAND issues, involved quite some coordination with other divisions of the UPC. The original case had to be split into three cases. The number of applications filed, on the part of Ericsson as well, meant that considerably more work than usual was involved in these cases that did not proceed beyond the statements of defence. More than ten applications and requests were filed, including R.190 RoP, R.9., R.355 RoP and R.262A RoP applications by Claimant. Two case management hearings were held (one prompted by several R.9.3 requests. The panel was also involved, inter alia in an extensive confidentiality order. In view of the above, the requests for reimbursement are therefore only partially granted. 4. The Registry is instructed to reimburse 25 % of the court fees paid in the three infringement actions. The Court has no issue with the proposed value of the action of EUR 12 mio anticipated by the Claimant for each case. The registry is also instructed to register the closure of the action in the register. **ORDER** The Court: 1. allows the withdrawal of the infringement actions UPC-CFI-1568/2026, UPC-CFI-1791/2025 and UPC-CFI-1793/2025 2. declares those proceedings closed; 3. orders that this decision shall be entered on the register (R.265.2(b) RoP); 4. orders the Registry to reimburse the Claimant 25 % of the court fees paid in the three cases; 5. declares that there is no further need for a cost decision. Edger Brinkman Presiding Judge Margot Kokke Judge Rapporteur Samuel Granata Legally Qualified Judge Christian Keller Technically Qualified Judge On behalf of the Deputy Registrar

Key Holdings

  • In cases with counterclaims, it is preferable for all parties to file a joint withdrawal request upon settlement.
  • Requests for reimbursement of court fees should be made in the same request as the withdrawal.
  • The Court may assume consent to withdrawal if a party does not respond by a set deadline.

Tags

  • Settlement
  • Withdrawal
  • Court Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Counterclaim

Related Cases

View original decision