UPC_ CFI_565/2024; UPC_ CFI_2246/2025 – KPN v Oleading

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

Expert Commentary

Disclosure of license agreements with others Order of the Judge-rapporteur (“JR”) 1. No extra delay for Statement of Defence because the expert for the defendants already had access to the license agreements for a considerable time. 2. A special regime will apply for licenses with Apple. Apple will be notified by the defendant of the identity of any external expert to which they intend to provide the license agreement. Apple may lodge an objection within 5 days. The Court shall then decide how to proceed. 3. The Court applies the same confidentiality regime as is in place in parallel proceedings between the parties in Düsseldorf. Comment 1. The Court rightfully states that it wants the proceedings to be dealt with within a year, which means no further delays. 2. A special practical arrangement for Apple in order to meet Apple’s objections in granting access to license agreements to which it is a party. 3. This order has slightly been changed on 2 June 2026 at the request of the parties (see UPC_CFI_2246/2025).

Full Decision Text

1 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 28 May 2026 regarding: exchange of licenses & confidentiality club 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 565/2024 UPC-CFI-0002246/2025 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”. PATENTS AT ISSUE: EP2337403 and EP3944587 DECIDING JUDGE Presiding judge Edger Brinkman Judge-rapporteur Edger Brinkman LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English Subject-matter of the proceedings: Infringement acTon GROUNDS Following the case management hearing of 11 May 2026, parTes have largely converged on the text of the (amended) order for access to licenses and the confidenTality club. Only a few outstanding issues need to be decided. KPN requests (in red is some addiTonal text as compared to a previous order, marked yellow is contended): 1. Ul#mately within five weeks a)er the order, Claimant will grant access to external counsel to Defendants and any external experts hired by Defendants all Claimant’s licenses for smartphone manufacturers since 2015, including earlier licenses in case of a renewal of such license in the period since 2015, to the extent not already provided following the Order ORD 17693/2025 of 23 April 2025, including in par#cular any license agreement concluded with and since 2015 (hereinaOer together: the “Materials”); 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 condi#ons will apply. This access excludes access under this Order regarding the license agreement which Claimant 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 applica#on filed by Claimant on 30 April 2025; 3 3. The same confiden#ality regime as agreed by the par#es in the LG Düsseldorf case (“Geheimhaltungsvereinbarung in den Gerichtsverfahren 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 contraven#on of the obliga#on in item 3, the Court may impose on the respec#ve party a recurring penalty payment of up to € 250,000 for each contraven#on; 5. Claimant shall specify to what extent this disclosure corresponds with the German disclosure, i.e. which licenses have been disclosed in both proceedings; 6. In rela#on to the disclosure of license agreements concluded with Apple, i.e. documents referred to by Claimant as F-BB27A up to and including F-BB27-F in the UPC CFI 2246/2025 mader (“Apple Documents”), the following addi#onal items apply: a. The Defendants will no#fy counsel for Apple Inc. at Simmons & Simmons LLP within two working days aOer the Order of the iden#ty of any external expert to which Defendants currently intend to provide the Apple Documents and may at any #me following the Order provide a further no#fica#on for a further or new external expert; b. Within five working days of receiving the no#fica#on in item a., Apple may lodge an objec#on at the Court against the proposed expert; c. In case an objec#on as referred to in item b. is #mely lodged, the Court shall decide how to proceed in rela#on to the Apple Documents; d. Any delay caused by this process and, if applicable, dealing with any objec#on by Apple will en#tle the Defendants to supplement their submissions at a later #me equal to the delay in rela#on to the Apple Documents; e. If Apple does not lodge objec#ons within the period referred to in item a., counsel for the Defendants shall be en#tled to provide Apple Documents to the external expert iden#fied pursuant to item a., provided that the expert provides an undertaking that they will comply with the confiden#ality regime set out in the Order prior to such receipt. The undertaking may s#pulate that liability for non- compliance remains with the Defendants; f. Apple shall be no#fied as soon as reasonably prac#cable if either party becomes aware of a breach or suspected breach of confiden#ality rela#ng to the Apple Documents and/or other Apple confiden#al informa#on disclosed under this Order; g. Apple shall be no#fied of the destruc#on or dele#on of all copies of the Apple Documents and/or other Apple confiden#al informa#on disclosed under this Order at the conclusion of the proceedings; 7. The deadline for the Statement of Defence shall be three months and five weeks aOer the date of the order; 4 8. The Defendants shall not be precluded from applying for access by one or more natural persons employed by the Defendants to Materials that they deem relevant to their defense. Such an applica#on does not in itself en#tle the Defendants to access. The Court shall rule on whether further access is granted and, if so, under what condi#ons, aOer hearing the relevant licensee(s) and KPN providing a term of at least 10 working days; 9. Defendants remain en#tled to supplement their submissions at a later stage where these supplements relate to Materials which remained insufficiently accessible due to the ini#al confiden#ality restric#ons; 10. In the event that in the proceedings concerning EP 3 349 412 before the LD Düsseldorf of the UPC (UPC CFI 249/2026) allows the use of the Materials in those proceedings, the parties agree that the disclosure and confidentiality arrangements in these proceedings shall apply to such use. First, Oppo wish to extend the deadline for their statement of defence unTl full and final disclosure of the licenses that KPN will grant has taken place. KPN rightly opposes this. It was the parTes (and JR’s) intenTon in parallel case 565/2024 to indeed arrange the access to KPN licenses first, before the SoD needed to be filed to enable a full defence rather than a defence based on access to licenses for the purposes of a FRAND argument. However, this has resulted in significant delay since KPN granted access to many licenses but not to a few where objecTons were filed by the counterparTes. Further delay, also given the objecTve of the UPC to handle cases within one year, can no longer be tolerated. Importantly, KPN also indicated it will not oppose to Oppo supplementing “their submissions at a later stage in relation to Materials that remained insufficiently accessible due to confidentiality restrictions”. Oppo may therefore amend its defence on that basis. The Court further takes into consideraTon that Oppo’s external expert has already had access for considerable Tme to all licenses, save for the Apple license. While the parallel case 2246/2025 was iniTated much later, it does not make sense to decide differently as it is the same disclosure in both cases. Second, Oppo wish to limit the response Tme of any counterparTes from 10 to 5 days, regarding an applicaTon they may file for access by one or more natural persons employed by the Defendants to Materials that they deem relevant to their defense (number 8). As regards disclosure to in-house personnel, KPN submits that a period of five working days for licensees to lodge objecTons is insufficient and inconsistent with the legiTmate expectaTons of KPN's licensees. The Court understands that Oppo wants this process to be fast and such counterparTes may already anTcipate such applicaTon and do their “homework”. At this point, the Court will therefore side with Oppo. However, in excepTonal circumstances a counterparty may request an extension to 10 days. KPN will of course ensure that a counterparty receives noTficaTon of such applicaTon forthwith. The below order updates the exisTng orders. KPN have informed the Court that Apple does not object to the expert proposed by Oppo, so 6.a-6.e have already been complied with (and no further Tme is lost due to this process). 5 ORDER The Court: 1. UlTmately within five weeks a1er this order, Claimant will grant access to external counsel to Defendants and any external experts hired by Defendants all Claimant’s licenses for smartphone manufacturers since 2015, including earlier licenses in case of a renewal of such license in the period since 2015, to the extent not already provided following the Order ORD 17693/2025 of 23 April 2025, including in parTcular any license agreement concluded with and since 2015 (hereinaoer together: the “Materials”); 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 condiTons will apply. This access excludes access under this Order regarding the license agreement which Claimant 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 applicaTon filed by Claimant on 30 April 2025; 3. The same confidenTality regime as agreed by the parTes in the LG Düsseldorf case (“Geheimhaltungsvereinbarung in den Gerichtsverfahren 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 contravenTon of the obligaTon in item 3, the Court may impose on the respecTve party a recurring penalty payment of up to € 250,000 for each contravenTon; 5. Claimant shall specify to what extent this disclosure corresponds with the German disclosure, i.e. which licenses have been disclosed in both proceedings; 6. In relaTon to the disclosure of license agreements concluded with Apple, i.e. documents referred to by Claimant as F-BB27A up to and including F-BB27-F in the UPC CFI 2246/2025 ma:er (“Apple Documents”), the following addiTonal items apply: a. The Defendants will noTfy counsel for Apple Inc. at Simmons & Simmons LLP within two working days aoer the Order of the idenTty of any external expert to which Defendants currently intend to provide the Apple Documents and may at any Tme following the Order provide a further noTficaTon for a further or new external expert; b. Within five working days of receiving the noTficaTon in item a., Apple may lodge an objecTon at the Court against the proposed expert; c. In case an objecTon as referred to in item b. is Tmely lodged, the Court shall decide how to proceed in relaTon to the Apple Documents; 6 d. Any delay caused by this process and, if applicable, dealing with any objecTon by Apple will entitle the Defendants to supplement their submissions at a later time equal to the delay in relation to the Apple Documents; e. If Apple does not lodge objecTons within the period referred to in item a., counsel for the Defendants shall be enTtled to provide Apple Documents to the external expert idenTfied pursuant to item a., provided that the expert provides an undertaking that they will comply with the confidenTality regime set out in the Order prior to such receipt. The undertaking may stipulate that liability for non- compliance remains with the Defendants; f. Apple shall be noTfied as soon as reasonably pracTcable if either party becomes aware of a breach or suspected breach of confidenTality relaTng to the Apple Documents and/or other Apple confidenTal informaTon disclosed under this Order; g. Apple shall be noTfied of the destrucTon or deleTon of all copies of the Apple Documents and/or other Apple confidenTal informaTon disclosed under this Order at the conclusion of the proceedings; 11. The deadline for the Statement of Defence shall be three months and five weeks aoer the date of the order; 12. The Defendants shall not be precluded from applying for access by one or more natural persons employed by the Defendants to Materials that they deem relevant to their defense. Such an applicaTon does not in itself enTtle the Defendants to access. The Court shall rule on whether further access is granted and, if so, under what condiTons, aoer hearing the relevant licensee(s) and KPN providing a term of at least 5 working days; 13. Defendants remain enTtled to supplement their submissions at a later stage where these supplements relate to Materials which remained insufficiently accessible due to the iniTal confidenTality restricTons; 14. In the event that in the proceedings concerning EP 3 349 412 before the LD Düsseldorf of the UPC (UPC CFI 249/2026) allows the use of the Materials in those proceedings, the parties agree that the disclosure and confidentiality arrangements in these proceedings shall apply to such use. Presiding Judge and Judge Rapporteur For the Deputy RegistrarLarissa Donata Hageman Digitally signed by Larissa Donata Hageman Date: 2026.05.28 17:13:29 +02'00'Edger Frank BRINKMAN Digitally signed by Edger Frank BRINKMAN Date: 2026.05.28 17:28:16 +02'00'

Key Holdings

  • No extra delay granted for Statement of Defence due to prior expert access to license agreements.
  • A special confidentiality regime was established for license agreements involving Apple, including notification and objection procedures.
  • The Court aims to conclude proceedings within one year, emphasizing no further delays.
  • Confidentiality arrangements were aligned with those in parallel proceedings between the parties.
  • The order was subsequently modified slightly at the parties' request.

Tags

  • Disclosure
  • License Agreements
  • Confidentiality
  • Procedural Order
  • Case Management

Related Cases

View original decision