Opens in a new tab

ASUSTeK Computer v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, ORD_20073/2025, 28 April 2025)

Date28 April 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMilan (IT) Local Division
Type of actionApplication RoP262A
Registry referenceApp_5416/2025 · ORD_20073/2025
PartiesASUSTek Computer Inc., Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V. 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 · 19 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The regime reserved to external counsel and experts only is rejected. Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A require a fair balance between the parties’ opposing interests, and Rule 262A.6, as interpreted by the Court of Appeal on 12 February 2025, requires that at least one natural person per party have access, without that person having to be an employee. The general competition law concerns invoked by the patent holder, absent concrete facts establishing a real risk of harm, do not justify the restriction, while the defendants sought access for only one natural person. Access is granted to the authorised external representatives and their assistants, to each party’s licensing expert and to one designated natural person per party. The information may be used only for the purposes of the proceedings, confidentiality obligations survive them, and culpable breaches are sanctioned by penalty payments under Rule 354.3.

Why it matters

This is the first application of the Court of Appeal’s test to FRAND litigation, and the first instance decision later brought before the Court of Appeal in Ericsson v ASUSTeK, decided on 26 January 2026. It shows that a competition law argument fails if it remains abstract.

Practical point

Opposing a competitive risk to an access request requires concrete, dated evidence. An objection of principle is rejected, and an opposing request limited to a single person weakens the challenge accordingly.

Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats. Only the official text of the decision is authoritative.

Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

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

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

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
Application RoP262A
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le régime réservé aux seuls conseils et experts externes est écarté. L'article 58 de l'accord et la règle 262A imposent un juste équilibre entre les intérêts opposés des parties, et la règle 262A.6, telle qu'interprétée par la cour d'appel le 12 février 2025, impose qu'au moins une personne physique par partie ait accès, sans que cette personne doive être un salarié. Les préoccupations générales de droit de la concurrence invoquées par le titulaire, faute d'éléments factuels concrets établissant un risque réel d'atteinte, ne justifient pas la restriction, alors que les défenderesses ne sollicitaient l'accès que pour une seule personne physique. L'accès est ouvert aux représentants externes autorisés et à leurs assistants, à l'expert en licences de chacune des parties et à une personne physique désignée par partie. Les informations ne peuvent être utilisées que pour les besoins de l'instance, les obligations de confidentialité survivent à celle-ci et les manquements fautifs sont sanctionnés par astreinte au titre de la règle 354.3.
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.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.