ASUS Technology Licensing v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 12 December 2025)

Date	12 December 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic Order
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_525/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_525/2025
Parties	ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.

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

In an order of 12 December 2025, the Munich Local Division ordered ASUS Technology Licensing, a claimant seated in Taiwan, to provide EUR 200,000 security for costs within six weeks in its infringement action on EP 3 346 616 against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications. Taiwan’s lack of any international agreement on enforcing foreign judgments and the length of recognition proceedings make enforcement of a costs order unduly burdensome.

Question

Can security for costs be required from a Taiwan-based patentee whose financial standing is not in dispute, and can it extend to a counterclaim for revocation not yet filed?

Decision

Security was ordered. The proposed set-off against future FRAND royalties was rejected, since possible future fees are not a claim that can be set off (paragraph 26). According to the expert opinion filed by ASUS, enforcement requires prior recognition by a Taiwanese court, which may take from six months to six years, and Taiwan is not party to any international agreement on enforcing foreign judgments, so enforcement would be at least unduly burdensome (paragraphs 28 to 32). Security may in principle be based on a counterclaim for revocation, but none had been filed, without prejudice to a later request (paragraph 34). As the defendants gave no figures for their costs, the amount was set at 50% of the EUR 400,000 ceiling (paragraphs 35 to 37).

Key points for practice

An expert opinion meant to show that enforcement is straightforward can backfire where it reveals a long and uncertain recognition procedure.
Practical point: a defendant that does not quantify its costs risks security being limited to a fraction of the applicable ceiling.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 69(4) and 73
Rules of Procedure: Rules 158, 220.2 and 355
Case law cited: Chint New Energy v JingAo Solar, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025, AorticLab v Emboline, Court of Appeal, 20 June 2025

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

UPC_CFI_525/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantASUS Technology Licensing Inc.2 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantGuangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o2 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): ASUS doit fournir sous six semaines une garantie des frais de 200 000 euros, l'exécution d'une condamnation aux frais à Taïwan étant excessivement lourde. La garantie au titre d'une demande reconventionnelle non encore formée est refusée.
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 3 346 616 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Chint New Energy v JingAo Solar (CoA, 9 July 2025) cited in this record
AorticLab v Emboline (CoA, 20 June 2025) cited in this record
Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics Parentco (CFI, 18 March 2026) cites this decision

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 3 346 616`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): ASUS Technology Licensing v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.