Koninklijke Philips v Quectel (CFI, UPC_CFI_2245/2025, 23 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 30 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 23 September 2026, the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division draws the consequences of the second case management hearing held on 8 September 2026 in the infringement actions brought by Koninklijke Philips against Quectel and related companies, with counterclaims for revocation, concerning EP 2 274 861 and EP 3 103 116. He endorses the parties’ agreement on late-filed exhibits and expert reports, extends the confidentiality regime to third-party technical information on the envisaged design-around, and rules out in advance any postponement of the hearing on account of mediation, which is to run in parallel.

Facts and procedure

The dispute brings together several infringement actions and the counterclaims for revocation attached to them. A second case management hearing was held on 8 September 2026, online and behind closed doors because confidential information was to be discussed. Each side had objected to exhibits filed late, on 20 July 2026 by Quectel and on 7 September 2026 by Philips, and a joint application was filed on 16 September 2026 to record the agreement reached at the hearing.

The applicable law

The order applies the Rules of Procedure and the confidentiality regime already in force in the proceedings, submitted by the parties on 25 February 2026 and endorsed by the Court on 4 March 2026.

Question

What was to follow from the objections to late-filed exhibits, from the protection of third-party technical information and from the prospect of mediation, as the hearing approached?

Decision

The judge-rapporteur sees no reason to adjust the values of the disputes. He endorses the parties’ agreement: the submissions and the expert reports stay in, except the Rodermund report, Philips being allowed to comment in thirty-five pages with a reasonable report and Quectel to respond in sixteen pages, all recorded in the joint application of 16 September 2026. For EP 3 103 116 only, confidentiality is extended to third-party technical information relating to the design-around envisaged by Quectel. Finally, the parties may turn to the mediation proposed by Quectel, but the hearing dates will not be postponed, the Court being able to consider this only on a joint request, so that mediation must run alongside the proceedings.

Key points for practice

• An agreement reached at the case management hearing on late-filed exhibits is endorsed where it is recorded in a joint application, with a page allowance fixed for each side.
• An existing confidentiality regime may be extended, patent by patent, to technical information coming from third parties, here information on an envisaged design-around.
• Announcing a mediation does not freeze the timetable: the Court keeps the hearing dates and will consider a postponement only on a joint request.
• The case management hearing may be held online and behind closed doors where confidential information is to be discussed.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules of Procedure, case management and confidentiality measures

Related decisions

• Koninklijke Philips v Quectel (CFI, 23 September 2026), order issued the same day in the parallel case.

Only the official text is authentic.