Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTeK Computer (CoA, 23 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 23 September 2025 in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_631/2025 and UPC_CoA_632/2025, the Court of Appeal admits Apple as an intervener in support of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. The appeals are directed against two orders of the Milan Local Division of 20 June 2025 which, in the infringement actions against ASUSTeK and Arvato on EP 2 727 342 and EP 3 076 673, had upheld a confidentiality regime giving access to one natural person per party and refused an “external eyes only” regime. The order makes clear that an interim order, such as a confidentiality regime, forms part of “the result of the action” within the meaning of Rule 313.1 RoP.

Question

May a third party intervene in an appeal concerning a confidentiality regime, or must the legal interest required by Rule 313.1 RoP relate to the final outcome of the dispute, as ASUSTeK argued?

Decision

The Court rejects ASUSTeK’s position: an interim order establishing a confidentiality regime is part of the result of the action and is an order sought by a party within the meaning of Rule 313.2 RoP, intervention remains confined to the extent of the interest shown (paragraph 13). Apple has a direct and present interest, since the information concerns its agreements with Ericsson. It is irrelevant that the final orders will not bind Apple or that Ericsson submits the information voluntarily (paragraph 14). Being a party to the agreements is sufficient (paragraph 15). Apple may file a Statement in intervention within 15 days and take part in the oral hearing. Its applications to file further submissions are rejected (paragraph 18).

Key points for practice

• Intervention is admissible in respect of an interim order, not only the final decision, but only to the extent of the legal interest shown (paragraph 13).
• A third-party licensee whose agreements are filed may support a stricter confidentiality regime on appeal (paragraphs 14 and 15).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.2, 262A, 313, 314, 315.1(a) and 331.2

Related decisions

• Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTeK Computer, 26 January 2026, Court of Appeal decision on the joined appeals.

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.