UPC_CFI_502/2024 – KPN v Oleading

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

Expert Commentary

Stay pending review by the EPO Enlarged Board Facts 1. The invoked patent 2 387 844 has been revoked by the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (“EPO”). 2. KPN filed a petition for review with the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO. 3. The parties ask for a stay. The JR The JR allows the stay. Comment This seems the right course of action for all parties involved, even if it in all likelihood will not lead to a decision within 12-14 months. A petition for review of a decision of the EPO Board of Appeal can only be successful on very limited grounds, such as fundamental violation of the rights to be heard, a severe procedural defect, or if a criminal act (e.g. fraud) influenced the decision. The likelihood that the patent stays revoked is thus very high. In those circumstances, requiring the parties to continue UPC proceedings against their will - and, in particular, requiring the Court to spend time on such a case – seems like a waste of effort.

Full Decision Text

1 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 June 2026 regarding: joint application to stay Claimant: 1) Koninklijke KPN N.V. Wilhelminakade 123 3072 AP Ro:erdam The Netherlands Also “KPN” 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) ReflecTon Investment B.V. Hofplein 20 3032 AC Ro:erdam 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-502/2024 2 5) Guangdong OPPO Mobile TelecommunicaTons Corp. No. 18, Haibin Road, Wusha, Chang’an Town Dongguan, Guangdong Republic of China represented by Rien Broekstra Together also “Oppo”. PATENT AT ISSUE: EP2387844 DECIDING JUDGE Presiding judge Edger Brinkman Judge-rapporteur Edger Brinkman LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English Subject-matter of the proceedings: Infringement acTon GROUNDS The patent was revoked by the TBA of the EPO. KPN filed a peTTon for review with the Enlarged Board. At the case management hearing of 11 May 2026, the situaTon whether to (conTnue to) stay was discussed. ParTes now jointly request: A stay of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP in the present case unTl a final decision in the opposiTon proceedings at the European Patent Office regarding EP 844 is available which is no longer appealable or reviewable in any way. The Judge-Rapporteur sees no reason not to allow this joint request. So will be ordered. ORDER The Court: stays the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP in the present case unTl a final decision in the opposiTon proceedings at the European Patent Office regarding EP 844 is available which is no longer appealable or reviewable in any way. Presiding Judge and Judge Rapporteur 3 For the Deputy Registrar

Key Holdings

  • A stay of UPC proceedings can be granted pending a petition for review by the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal.
  • Such a stay is appropriate when the underlying patent has been revoked by the EPO Board of Appeal and the likelihood of the revocation being overturned is low.
  • Petitions for review by the EPO Enlarged Board are successful only on very limited grounds (e.g., fundamental procedural defects, fraud).
  • Continuing UPC proceedings when a patent is likely to remain revoked by the EPO is considered a waste of judicial and party resources.

Tags

  • Stay of Proceedings
  • EPO
  • Revocation
  • Procedural
  • Enlarged Board of Appeal

Related Cases

View original decision