UPC_CFI_757/2024 – Ericsson v Asustek
- Court
- Local Division Lisbon
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Electronics/SEP
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Enforcement Facts 1. On 15 June 2026, the claimant notified the Court of its intention to enforce the decision of 6 May 2026 (R. 118.8 RoP). 2. Defendant did not raise any objections. The JR 1. The Judge-Rapporteur (JR) states that a certified translation is not necessary and that the orders contained in the decision of 6 May 2026 are enforceable from the date on which the claimant notified the Court. 2. The JR then issues an order “acknowledging that claimant has complied with R.118.8 RoP”. 3. Furthermore, the JR mentions that any party may ask for a review of the order. Comment 1. I agree with the JR that no translation is necessary. but I do not agree that the orders of the 6 May 2026 decision are enforceable from the date of the claimant's notification to the Court. I think that the notice has to be served on the defendants, and only then the orders become enforceable. 2. I wonder whether the defendant (who “did not raise objections”) must be informed and, if so, whether it can raise objections. I do not think so. I think that the whole order is unnecessary and out of place , let alone the possibility for the parties to request a review. R. 118.8 RoP seems to me written in order to tell the Registry what has to be served. I also do not understand the last paragraph of R. 118.8 RoP. In my view, it should have been drafted as a separate subparagraph.
Full Decision Text
Unified Patent Court, Lisbon Local Division UPC CFI 757/2024, UPC CFI 539/2025 Order 2 July 2026 EUROPEAN PATENT NO EP 2 819 131 B1 **CLAIMANT** TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON 21 Torshamnsgatan, Kista, 164 83 Stockholm, Sweden. represented by Mr. Wim Maas **DEFENDANT** ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC 15, Lide Road, Beitou Dist., Taipei City 112019, Taiwan. represented by Mr. Alexander Wiese **PATENT AT ISSUE:** EUROPEAN PATENT NO EP 2 819 131 B1 **DECIDING JUDGE** This order has been issued by the Presiding Judge Rute Lopes acting as judge rapporteur. **LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:** English **SUBJECT-MATTER:** R. 118.8 ROP **SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES** 1. On 15 June 2026, the Claimant notified the Court pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP of its intention to enforce the decision dated 6 May 2026. 2. The Defendant raised no objection. **GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER:** 3. According to the Court of Appeal’s decision (14 October 2025, UPC CoA 699/2025, Fujifilm v Kodak), there is no need for the Claimant to provide a certified translation of the orders, due to the nature of the orders to enforce. In that regard, the orders stated in the decision of 6 May 2026 are enforceable from the date of the notice to the Court by the Claimant. **ORDER** The Court acknowledges that the Claimant has complied with Rule 118.8 in respect of the orders of the decision in its entirety, with effect from 15 June 2026. **INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEW BY PANEL** Any party may request that this Order be referred to the panel for a review pursuant to R. 333 RoP. Pending review, the Order shall be effective (R. 102.2 RoP)
Key Holdings
- The Judge-Rapporteur (JR) deemed a certified translation unnecessary for enforcement orders.
- The JR ruled that orders are enforceable from the date the claimant notifies the Court, a point disputed by the commentator who argues for service on the defendant.
- The JR issued an order acknowledging the claimant's compliance with R. 118.8 RoP, allowing for potential review by parties.
- The commentator questioned the necessity and appropriateness of the JR's order and the possibility of review, suggesting R. 118.8 RoP is primarily for Registry instructions.
- The commentator also raised doubts about whether the defendant, who raised no objections, should be informed or allowed to object to the enforcement notification.
Tags
- Enforcement
- Procedure
- Rules of Procedure
- Service of Documents
- Translation
- Judge-Rapporteur