Motorola Mobility v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, ORD_25797/2024, 6 August 2024)

Date	6 August 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Amend Document
Registry reference	App_25259/2024 · ORD_25797/2024
Parties	Motorola 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 (UPC_CFI_41/2024, ACT_5324/2024, ORD_25797/2024), the Munich Local Division (M. Zigann, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur, P. Perrotti, T. Pichlmaier) refused Motorola Mobility, proprietor of EP 3 780 758, leave to add claims for an injunction, recall, removal from the channels of commerce and destruction to its infringement action against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH. The order applies the diligence condition in Rule 263.2 RoP strictly in a dispute over a patent declared essential to 5G.

Question

May the holder of a standard essential patent add injunctive claims mid-proceedings by relying on its FRAND commitments and on an unwillingness to license that emerged after the action was filed?

Decision

Rule 263.1 RoP allows a claim to be changed at any stage, but Rule 263.2 RoP requires the applicant to show, cumulatively, that the change could not have been made earlier with reasonable diligence and that it will not unreasonably hinder the other party (paragraph 1). The first condition is not met: Motorola had sought an injunction in the UK as early as 15 December 2023, which it did not dispute, and the application should have been made by mid-February 2024 at the latest (paragraph 2). The application therefore failed without the second condition being examined. Leave to appeal was refused, the case being clear-cut.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a SEP holder intending to seek an injunction should do so in the Statement of Claim or without delay, a comparable claim brought in another jurisdiction may be held against it on diligence.

Provisions applied

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

claimantMotorola Mobility LLC19 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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): La demande de Motorola tendant à ajouter des demandes d'injonction et de mesures correctives est rejetée, faute de diligence au sens de la règle 263.2, sous a). L'autorisation d'appel est refusée.
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 3 780 758 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 780 758`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Ericsson v Motorola Mobility (CoA, 11 April 2025) · Motorola Mobility v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, 8 February 2 · Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Motorola Mobility (CFI, 5 February 2	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.