NEC v TCL Communication (CFI, ORD_46842/2024, 2 October 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 2 October 2024 (ORD_46842/2024, registered under ACT_595922/2023, although the operative part refers to proceedings UPC_CFI_153/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (panel 2, D. Voß) admitted Access Advance, administrator of an HEVC standard-essential patent pool, as an intervener in support of NEC in its infringement action on EP 2 863 637 against the TCL companies, which have counterclaimed for revocation. The intervener’s access to the defendants’ confidential FRAND submissions is organised by category.

Question

Does the administrator of the pool to which the patent was contributed have a legal interest in intervening (Rule 313.1 RoP), and does Art. 101 TFEU stand in the way?

Decision

A legal interest means a direct and present interest in the order sought by the supported party. Access Advance’s rights in the patent derive from NEC: a ruling on infringement or validity affects them directly, and an economic interest does not exclude a legal one. No abuse of process is shown. The intervention is not in itself a concerted practice under Art. 101 TFEU, and a referral to the CJEU is refused as the questions are not relevant. As the intervener is treated as a party (Rule 315.4 RoP), it has access to the file, but its employees may not see information on the bilateral negotiations between NEC and TCL, which is reserved to its counsel, on pain of a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per breach.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: in SEP litigation, a pool administrator may intervene in support of the patentee, but its employees’ access to confidential FRAND information may be limited by category (Rule 262A.6 RoP).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 21

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262A, 313 and 315

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Arts. 101, 102 and 267

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 10 January 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 April 2024, UPC_CFI_363/2023, Düsseldorf Local Division, 26 June 2024, UPC_CFI_457/2023, Vienna Local Division, 30 July 2024, UPC_CFI_33/2024, CJEU, Huawei v ZTE

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.