Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Koninklijke KPN (CFI, 7 April 2026)
| Date | 7 April 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_249/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_249/2026 |
| Parties | Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, / Orope Germany GmbH v. Koninklijke KPN N.V |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 7 April 2026, the President of the Court of First Instance grants the application of Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and Orope Germany, defendants in the infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN on EP 3 349 412 before the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_249/2026), and replaces German with English, the language in which the patent was granted. As KPN agreed to the change, the only open issue was the time limit for translating the statement of claim and two annexes. The order is of limited reach. It confirms that this time limit is set having regard to the interests of all parties.
Question
Where the claimant agrees to a change to the language of grant, within what period must it file translations of its statement of claim and the relevant exhibits?
Decision
On the basis of Rule 323.3, English becomes the language of the proceedings for all subsequent steps. The defendants sought translations of the statement of claim and Annexes K_10 and K_17 within two weeks, KPN asked for three. Noting that these documents run to 63 pages, and having regard to the date of effective service and the defendants’ subsequent time limits, the President sets the deadline at 24 April 2026 (section 2). An appeal lies within 15 days of service of the order on the applicants.
Key points for practice
- Once the claimant consents to the change of language, the dispute narrows to the translation timetable, which is set by reference to the volume of documents and the defence timetable (section 2).
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 73(2)(a)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 220, 323 and 324
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, Patent infringement action.
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
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.
Parties
- defendantKoninklijke KPN N.V.7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantOrope Germany GmbH23 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantGuangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.24 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La langue de la procédure devient l’anglais, langue de délivrance, avec l’accord du demandeur, qui doit produire la traduction de sa demande et de deux annexes avant le 24 avril 2026.
- 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 3 349 412mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 349 412 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.