UPC_CFI_2246/2025 – KPN v Oleading

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

Expert Commentary

Production of license agreements Facts 1. An infringement claim was filed by KPN. 2. KPN was willing to give access to counsel and outside experts of the defendants to all of its license agreements with smartphone manufacturers relating to EP 3 944 587 (and its foreign family members). 3. The parties submitted a joint request to the Court for the same confidentiality regime to be applied in this case as in a parallel case before the Landgericht Düsseldorf. The JR The JR granted the request. As the parties requested a case management hearing, the JR asked the parties for convenient days in the period of 20 April to 20 May 2026. Comment In national litigation (for example, in the Netherlands or France), patent litigators are used to reaching agreement on procedural matters (including confidentiality regimes and costs) if this is practical. This would also be a desirable attitude in the UPC. Why did the parties request a management conference? We do not know. Did they hope to be able to settle under the Mr. Brinkman guidance? Pure speculation!

Full Decision Text

1 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 13 April 2026 regarding: exchange of licences & confidentiality club Claimant: 1) Koninklijke KPN N.V. Wilhelminakade 123 3072 AP Rotterdam The Netherlands represented by Peter van Gemert Defendant: 1) Oleading B.V. Weena 505, 15th floor, space B1512 518100 Shenzhen, Guangdong Province People's Republic of China represented by Rien Broekstra 2) Reflection Investment B.V. Hofplein 20 3032 AC Rotterdam The Netherlands represented by Rien Broekstra 3) Orope Germany GmbH Graf-Adolf-Platz 15 40213 Düsseldorf Germany represented by Rien Broekstra 4) OTECH Germany GmbH Graf-Adolf-Platz 15 40213 Düsseldorf Germany represented by Rien Broekstra The Hague - Local Division UPC-CFI-0002246/2025 2 5) Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. No. 18, Haibin Road, Wusha, Chang’an Town Dongguan, Guangdong Republic of China represented by PATENT AT ISSUE: EP3944587 DECIDING JUDGE Presiding judge Edger Brinkman Judge-rapporteur Edger Brinkman LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English Subject-matter of the proceedings: Infringement action GROUNDS Parties jointly requested as follows: 1. Ultimately on [2 weeks after the order], KPN will grant access to counsel to Defendants and any external experts hired by Defendants (i) all KPN’s licenses for smartphone manufacturers and (ii) all agreements in which a license or a non-assert has been agreed that includes EP 587 and/or a family member thereof (EP and/or foreign), with the exception of licenses relating to payment terminals or electronic payments, concluded since 2015 including earlier licenses in case of a renewal of such license in the period since 2015. 2. In case in the proceedings before the LG Düsseldorf, certain employees of Oppo have been granted access to certain license(s), such access is mirrored in these proceedings, and the same conditions will apply. This access excludes access under this Order regarding the license agreement which the KPN has indicated should not have been disclosed under the scope of the disclosure in the context of the proceedings before the LG Düsseldorf, unless the LG Düsseldorf decides differently on the application filed by KPN on 30 April 2025. 3. The same confidentiality regime as agreed by the parties in the LG Düsseldorf case (“Geheimhaltungsvereinbarung in den Gerrichtsverfahren 4b O 27 /22 und 4b O 44/22”) will apply to the extent that Oppo employees have obtained access. 3 4. The Court notes that, in the event of a culpable contravention of the obligation in item 3, the Court may impose on the respective party a recurring penalty payment of up to € 250,000 for each contravention. The Court has no reason to deviate from this joint request and so will be ordered. Parties also requested that the Court hold a case management hearing. To this end, parties are requested to submit their availability dates for 20 April-20 May 2026 by the end of this week. ORDER The Court: 1. Ultimately within two weeks after the order, KPN will grant counsel to Defendants and any external experts hired by Defendants access to (i) all KPN’s licenses for smartphone manufacturers and (ii) all agreements in which a license or a non-assert has been agreed that includes EP 587 and/or a family member thereof (EP and/or foreign), with the exception of licenses relating to payment terminals or electronic payments, concluded since 2015 including earlier licenses in case of a renewal of such license in the period since 2015. 2. In case in the proceedings before the LG Düsseldorf, certain employees of Oppo have been granted access to certain license(s), such access is mirrored in these proceedings, and the same conditions will apply. This access excludes access under this Order regarding the license agreement which the KPN has indicated should not have been disclosed under the scope of the disclosure in the context of the proceedings before the LG Düsseldorf, unless the LG Düsseldorf decides differently on the application filed by KPN on 30 April 2025. 3. The same confidentiality regime as agreed by the parties in the LG Düsseldorf case (“Geheimhaltungsvereinbarung in den Gerrichtsverfahren 4b O 27 /22 und 4b O 44/22”) will apply to the extent that Oppo employees have obtained access. 4. The Court notes that, in the event of a culpable contravention of the obligation in item 3, the Court may impose on the respective party a recurring penalty payment of up to € 250,000 for each contravention. Presiding Judge and Judge Rapporteur For the Deputy Registrar

Key Holdings

  • The Court granted a joint request for a specific confidentiality regime concerning license agreements.
  • Parties sought to apply the same confidentiality regime as in a parallel national case.
  • The Court scheduled a case management hearing upon the parties' request.
  • The analysis highlights the desirability of parties reaching agreement on procedural matters in UPC litigation, similar to national practices.

Tags

  • Confidentiality
  • License Agreements
  • Procedural
  • Case Management
  • Infringement

Related Cases

View original decision