Opens in a new tab

Sun Patent Trust v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 23 December 2025)

Date23 December 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_538/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_538/2025
PartiesNEC Corporation v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et. al.
LanguageEnglish

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 · 30 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 23 December 2025 the Mannheim Local Division permits Sun Patent Trust to withdraw its action for infringement of EP 2 903 267 against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and several European distributors, declares the proceedings closed, finds that no cost decision is required, sets the value of the dispute at one million five hundred thousand euros and orders the reimbursement of sixty per cent of the court fees, that is eleven thousand four hundred euros.

Facts and procedure

The action targeted the manufacturer and a series of distributors established in several member states. The represented parties agreed on the withdrawal and each declared that it would bear its own costs. One defendant had not taken part in the proceedings.

The applicable law

Withdrawal is governed by Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure. The partial reimbursement of court fees rests on Rule 370.11, read with Rule 370.9(b) in the version in force since 1 January 2026, Rule 370.9(e) allowing a lower reimbursement where exceptional circumstances appear.

Question

Could the withdrawal be permitted, and to what extent were the court fees to be reimbursed?

Decision

The withdrawal is permitted in accordance with the common intention of the represented parties. As against the defendant that did not take part, it is permitted because that party showed no interest in the proceedings, and no cost decision is required for it since it plainly incurred no recoverable costs. The proceedings are declared closed, the decision entered on the register, the value of the dispute set at one million five hundred thousand euros and sixty per cent of the court fees, that is eleven thousand four hundred euros, reimbursed to the claimant, the withdrawal having occurred before the closure of the written procedure.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 265, 370.9(b), 370.9(e) and 370.11

Only the official text is authentic.

Going further

Glossary entries : Patent infringement, Unified Patent Court.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
English from the language of proceedings
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_538/2025 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 division locale de Mannheim autorise le désistement, y compris à l’égard d’une défenderesse non représentée faute d’intérêt manifesté, clôt la procédure sans décision sur les frais et ordonne la restitution de 60 % des frais de justice, soit 11 400 euros.
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 2 903 267Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Sun Patent Trust v Roku (CFI, 19 May 2025) · Sun Patent Trust v Roku (CFI, 18 March 2025)
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.