Opens in a new tab

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Koninklijke KPN (CFI, 7 April 2026)

Date7 April 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_249/2026
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_249/2026
PartiesGuangdong 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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_249/2026 official number

Follow this case

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
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

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 349 412Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.