UPC_CFI_850/2026 – Transsion v Ericsson
- Court
- Local Division Lisbon
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Electronics/SEP
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Alignment of deadlines Facts 1. Transsion sued four Ericsson companies for infringement. 2. Three out of four companies have already been served. 3. The parties agreed that the representatives for the three served companies will also file an appearance for the fourth company, and that the term for preliminary objections will be 1 May 2026 and for defence and counterclaim 1 July 2026. The JR The JR granted the request. Comment A sensible agreement between the parties which avoids further delays with respect to the party who has not yet been served and aligns the dates for the written pleadings.
Full Decision Text
Lisbon Local Division UPC CFI 850/2026 ORDER 7 April 2026 EUROPEAN PATENT NO EP4123910 **CLAIMANT:** 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 represented by Mr. Andreas Kramer Mr. Alex Wilson Mr. Ari Laakkonen **DEFENDANTS:** Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista, 164 83 Stockholm, Sweden Ericsson Holding International B.V. Stationslaan 222, Platform C, 3rd floor, 4815 GW Breda, the Netherlands Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V. Stationslaan 222, 4815 GW Breda, the Netherlands Ericsson Telecomunicações, Lda. Lagoas Park, Edifício 4, Piso 0, 2740-267 Porto Salvo, Portugal represented by Mr. Wim Maas PANEL: Presiding judge and Judge-rapporteur: Rute Lopes Legally qualified judge: Andras Kupecz Legally qualified judge: François Thomas DECIDING JUDGE: This order is issued by Judge Rute Lopes, acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English. SUBJECT: Alignment of deadlines – R. 9 RoP **REQUEST** 1. On 7 April 2026, the Defendants requested that the Court align the terms for submitting the Defendants’ Preliminary Objection, Statements of Defence and lodging a Counterclaim for Revocation as follows: • Preliminary Objection - 1 May 2026; and • Statement of Defence and the Counterclaim for Revocation - 1 July 2026 2. The Defendants argued that until the present moment, only the First, Third and Fourth Defendants have been effectively served with the Statement of Claim and that in order to simplify the proceedings, the parties have come to an agreement on the appointment of representatives for all Defendants in exchange for the alignment of deadlines. **GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER:** 3. Given that the request was made following an agreement between the parties, it is not necessary to hear the other party. 4. The Court may extend or shorten a time period referred to in the RoP - R. 9.3 RoP. 5. The Court acknowledges that the appointment of a representative for all Defendants, made it possible to expedite the proceedings for the Defendant not yet effectively served. 6. The request for an extension of the deadline should be granted in circumstances that justify it, in view of the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity, without unduly compromising the principle of ensuring expeditious decisions. 7. The request for the alignment of dates is perfectly reasonable, having in consideration that the First, Third and Fourth Defendants were served on 26 March 2026. Furthermore, such alignment is desirable, as it will allow all Defendants to file a consolidated defence and counterclaim, resulting in significant efficiency gains in case management, as the case is treated uniformly. 8. The request is therefore granted. **ORDER** The request for the alignment of deadlines for all Defendants is granted as follows: • The Preliminary Objection is due on 1 May 2026, for all Defendants. • The Statement of Defence and logging of a Counterclaim for revocation are due on 1 July 2026, for all Defendants.
Key Holdings
- The Judge-Rapporteur can grant requests for alignment of deadlines based on party agreement.
- Party agreements to align deadlines for served and unserved defendants are sensible and avoid delays.
Tags
- Procedural
- Time Limits
- Service
- Case Management
- Agreement