NEC v TCL Communication (CFI, ORD_46866/2024, 2 October 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 2 October 2024 (ORD_46866/2024, UPC_CFI_498/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division admitted Access Advance, administrator of the HEVC standard essential patent pool to which NEC contributed EP 3 057 321, as an intervener in support of NEC in its infringement action against several TCL group companies. The intervener’s access to the file is restricted: confidential material in the defendants’ FRAND briefs is open only to named individuals, and no Access Advance employee may see material on the negotiations between NEC and TCL. The request for a preliminary reference to the CJEU was refused.

Question

Does a licensing pool administrator that has negotiated unsuccessfully with the defendants for several years have a legal interest in intervening in support of the proprietor, and does its intervention fall foul of competition law?

Decision

Yes to the first question, no to the second. The formal requirements of Rule 313 RoP were met and the intervener has a direct and present interest, its rights as administrator over the patent deriving from the claimant’s (I). The intervention is not an abuse of process, as it does not in itself require disclosure of information covered by the non-disclosure agreement, and admitting it does not breach Article 101 TFEU, there being no concrete risk of coordination (I). The intervener, treated as a party (Rule 315.4 RoP), is given access to the file subject to restrictions based on Rule 262A RoP, at least one natural person having to be given access (III and V). Any culpable breach may attract a penalty of up to EUR 250,000. A preliminary reference, being discretionary (Article 267 TFEU, Art. 21 UPCA), was refused as the questions were not relevant to the outcome (IV).

Key points for practice

• A standard essential patent pool administrator may intervene in support of the proprietor in FRAND proceedings before the UPC.
• Practical point: a defendant opposing the intervention should engage specifically with who receives access and how many, rather than with access as such.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 21

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262A, 313 and 315

Case law cited

CJEU, Huawei v ZTE, Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 January 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 April 2024, UPC_CFI_363/2023, Düsseldorf Local Division, 26 June 2024, UPC_CFI_457/2023, Vienna Local Division, 30 July 2024, UPC_CFI_33/2024.

Related decisions

• NEC v TCL Deutschland, 15 January 2025, subsequent withdrawal of the action after the parties reached agreement.

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.