Koninklijke Philips v TCL Industries (CFI, 9 April 2026)
| Date | 9 April 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | The Hague (NL) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1079/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-0001079/2025 |
| Parties | Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. al |
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 · 19 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
Seised of cross-applications for confidentiality and production, the Local Division orders, under Rule 103 RoP, the reciprocal production of licence agreements: for Philips, its licences on its cellular standard essential patent portfolio concluded with handset manufacturers, with amendments and side letters, and for TCL, its licences on patents declared essential to the UMTS, LTE and 5G standards, the wording “including but not limited to” being rejected as too vague (paras. 3.4.1 and 3.5.9). As long as it has not been established which licences will be relevant or relied on, access reserved to the representatives and to no more than three external economic experts is held to be possible and appropriate (paras. 3.4.2 and 3.5.11). The Court of Appeal orders of 26 January 2026 are distinguished: there, the agreement was already on file and relied on (para. 3.4.2). Should that situation arise, the Division indicates that it would admit two TCL employees instead of the six requested, with a two-year negotiation ban instead of five (para. 3.4.3). The regime survives the end of the proceedings and provides for a penalty of up to one million euros per breach (paras. 3.5.15 and 3.5.16). The fact that Philips is not a competitor of TCL does not rule out any restriction of access to TCL’s commercial data (para. 3.3.2).
Why it matters
The order introduces a gradation over time. Access reserved to counsel remains admissible as long as the licence is not relied on. Access by at least one employee becomes necessary as soon as it is. It also shows that production of an entire licence portfolio can be ordered as early as the written procedure where the parties are amenable.
Practical point
Prepare two regimes: one for production, reserved to counsel and experts, and one for reliance, where an employee will read the agreement. The second is better negotiated in advance (number of readers, duration of the ban, objection mechanism) than in the urgency of a request for modification.
Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats. Only the official text of the decision is authoritative.
Going further
Lexicon: Patent infringement action.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (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
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
- claimantKoninklijke Philips N.V.28 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantTCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. alFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Saisie de demandes croisées de confidentialité et de production, la division locale ordonne, sur le fondement de la règle 103 RoP, la production réciproque des accords de licence : pour Philips, ses licences sur son portefeuille de brevets essentiels cellulaires conclues avec des fabricants de terminaux, avec avenants et lettres annexes, pour TCL, ses licences sur les brevets déclarés essentiels aux normes UMTS, LTE et 5G, la formule « including but not limited to » étant écartée comme trop vague (§ 3.4.1 et 3.5.9). Tant qu'il n'est pas établi quelles licences seront pertinentes ou invoquées, un accès réservé aux représentants et à trois experts économiques externes au plus est jugé possible et approprié (§ 3.4.2 et 3.5.11). Les ordonnances de la cour d'appel du 26 janvier 2026 sont distinguées : l'accord y était déjà au dossier et invoqué (§ 3.4.2). Pour le cas où cette situation se présenterait, la division indique qu'elle admettrait deux salariés de TCL au lieu des six demandés, avec une interdiction de négocier de deux ans au lieu de cinq (§ 3.4.3). Le régime survit à la fin de l'instance et prévoit une pénalité pouvant atteindre un million d'euros par manquement (§ 3.5.15 et 3.5.16). Le fait que Philips ne soit pas concurrent de TCL n'exclut pas toute restriction d'accès aux données commerciales de cette dernière (§ 3.3.2).
- 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
- Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 27 May 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
Standards or technologies mentioned in the summary or official headnote of this decision: 5G NR, LTE / 4G, UMTS / 3G. Textual mention, without any essentiality assessment.
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.