Opens in a new tab

Motorola Mobility v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, ORD_27411/2024, 6 August 2024)

Date6 August 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionAmend Document
Registry referenceApp_25265/2024 · ORD_27411/2024
PartiesMotorola Mobility LLC

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 6 August 2024 (ORD_27411/2024, UPC_CFI_42/2024, ACT_5326/2024), the Munich Local Division refused Motorola Mobility leave to change its claims, in its action for infringement of EP 3 342 086 against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH, so as to add an injunction (Art. 63 UPCA) and corrective measures of recall, definitive removal from the channels of commerce and destruction (Art. 64 UPCA). In the Division’s view, those claims could and should have been made by mid-February 2024 at the latest, leave to appeal was refused.

Question

Can a proprietor asserting a patent in a FRAND context add, while the action is pending, a claim for an injunction and corrective measures that it left out of its statement of claim because it did not want to alert the defendants prematurely?

Decision

No. Rule 263.2 RoP requires the claimant to show both that the amendment could not have been made earlier with reasonable diligence and that it will not unreasonably hinder the other party, the burden lying on the claimant (1). Motorola did not dispute the defendants’ submissions, in particular the injunction it had sought in the United Kingdom on 15 December 2023, so the relevant circumstances were known before the action was brought and nothing new had occurred since (2). The first condition was not met, which sufficed to reject the application. As the case was clear-cut, leave to appeal was not granted.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts. 63, 64(1) and (2)(b), (d) and (e) and 73(2)(b)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 220.2, 224.1(b) and 263

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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
Amend Document
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
L'ajout tardif d'une demande d'injonction et de mesures correctives est refusé, Motorola n'ayant pas établi qu'elle ne pouvait les former plus tôt avec une diligence raisonnable.
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 3 342 086Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Motorola Mobility v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CoA, 6 September
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.