ASUS Technology Licensing v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 26 June 2026)

Date	26 June 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Counterclaim for revocation
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_2022/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_2022/2025
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

By order of 26 June 2026, the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division confirms that the OPPO companies’ reply in the counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 346 616 was filed in time, although it had been lodged on 3 June 2026 only in the infringement action workflow (UPC_CFI_525/2025) and lodged again on 13 June 2026 in the counterclaim workflow (UPC_CFI_2022/2025). The order matters for everyday use of the Case Management System (CMS): filing in the wrong workflow does not necessarily mean a missed deadline.

Question

Does lodging a submission in the infringement action workflow, rather than in the counterclaim for revocation workflow, prevent the time limit from being met?

Decision

Under Rule 4.1 RoP, parties are responsible for filing in time and in the correct CMS workflow, and the Court is not bound to accept a late submission. Any exception requires that no other party’s rights are infringed (paragraph 7). The Court’s IT systems should not, however, be used to deny access to justice, and several unnamed first instance decisions have accepted submissions lodged in the wrong workflow where their content reached the Court and the other parties in time (paragraph 8). The submission of 3 June 2026 was available to the Court and to ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. as if it had been lodged in the counterclaim workflow, and ASUS’s response reflected this. The filing of 13 June 2026 is a mere technical correction (paragraphs 9 and 10). The time limit is therefore held to have been met. The operative part does not rule on the alternative request for a retroactive extension.

Key points for practice

A filing in the wrong CMS workflow may be cured where its content was made available to the Court and the opponent within the time limit, without prejudice to the opponent’s rights (paragraphs 7 to 10).
The assessment remains case-specific and Rule 4.1 RoP leaves responsibility for the correct workflow with the parties: filing in every relevant workflow remains the safer course (paragraph 7).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 4.1 and 9

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: Revocation action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: G 1/25, Take Three: Anything You Leave in the Description May Be Used Against You (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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_2022/2025 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: Counterclaim for revocation
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le délai de dépôt de la réplique dans la demande reconventionnelle en nullité est jugé respecté, l’écriture versée à temps dans le dossier de l’action en contrefaçon ayant été accessible à la juridiction et à l’adversaire.
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

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.