Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTeK Computer (CFI, 16 August 2024)

Date	16 August 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Lisbon (PT) Local Division
Type of action	Generic Order
Registry reference	ORD_46326/2024
Parties	Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 16 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_317/2024, ACT_35572/2024, App_41354/2024), the Lisbon Local Division (R. Lopes, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur, S. Granata, P. Rinkinen) dismissed the request by ASUSTeK Computer, Arvato Netherlands and Digital River Ireland that Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, which seeks provisional measures on EP 2 819 131, be ordered to comply with Rule 13.1(h) RoP and to produce the prior art, pleadings and expert reports from other proceedings concerning the patent. The order defines the scope of the duty to disclose parallel proceedings.

Question

Does Rule 13.1(h) RoP require an applicant to produce the documents from other proceedings on the patent, rather than merely identify them?

Decision

Rule 13.1(h) RoP requires the applicant to identify actions before other courts or authorities, so that the Court can assess their relevance (paragraph 10). The Registry checks only that the information has been given, not that it is accurate, and gaps can be cured. Ericsson acted reasonably in supplementing its information during the written procedure (paragraphs 11 to 14). The rule calls for information only, unlike Rule 13.1(f) and (j) RoP, which require evidence, and so it provides no basis for the production request (paragraphs 15 and 16). Balancing the parties’ interests, the burden sought would also be at odds with the urgency of provisional measures proceedings, decided on a more likely than not standard (paragraph 17). Leave to appeal was granted.

Key points for practice

Practical point: Rule 13.1(h) RoP is not a disclosure tool, a defendant seeking the papers from parallel proceedings needs another legal basis.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Preamble and Art. 73(2)(b)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 13, 206.4 and 220.2
Case law cited: 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, UPC_CoA_335/2023

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents.

Dhenne Avocats blog: FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

defendantTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson34 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantASUSTek Computer Inc.26 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantDigital River Ireland Ltd.16 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantArvato Netherlands B.V.9 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La règle 13.1, sous h), n'impose qu'une information sur les autres procédures et ne permet pas d'ordonner la production de leurs pièces. La demande des défenderesses est rejetée et l'appel autorisé.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 819 131 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

NanoString Technologies v 10x Genomics (CoA, 26 February 2024) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 819 131` Inductor layout for reduced VCO coupling recorded proprietor: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson AB	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTek Computer (CFI, UPC_CFI_757/2 · TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v ASUSTek Computer (CFI, UPC_CFI_757/2 · TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v ASUSTek Computer (CFI, 29 July 2026) · Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTek Computer (CFI, UPC_CFI_757/2 · Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTeK Computer (CFI, 28 July 2025) · Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v AsusTek Computer (CFI, 4 April 2025) · AsusTek Computer v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, 4 April 2025) · Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTEK Computer (CFI, 15 October 20	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.