Opens in a new tab

NEC v TCL Deutschland (CFI, 2 October 2024)

Date2 October 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric Order
Registry referenceORD_46985/2024
PartiesNEC Corporation v. TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, , TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG,…

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 2 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_153/2024, ACT_16417/2024, ORD_46985/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (panel 2, D. Voß) admitted Access Advance, administrator of an HEVC standard-essential patent pool, as an intervener in support of NEC in its infringement action on EP 2 863 637 against the TCL companies, which have counterclaimed for revocation. The intervener’s access to the defendants’ confidential FRAND submissions is organised by category.

Question

Does the administrator of the pool to which the patent was contributed have a legal interest in intervening (Rule 313.1 RoP), and does Art. 101 TFEU stand in the way?

Decision

A legal interest means a direct and present interest in the order sought by the supported party. Access Advance’s rights in the patent derive from NEC: a ruling on infringement or validity affects them directly, and an economic interest does not exclude a legal one. No abuse of process is shown. The intervention is not in itself a concerted practice under Art. 101 TFEU, and a referral to the CJEU is refused as the questions are not relevant. As the intervener is treated as a party (Rule 315.4 RoP), it has access to the file, but its employees may not see information on the bilateral negotiations between NEC and TCL, which is reserved to its counsel, on pain of a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per breach. The statement in intervention may be lodged by 23 October 2024.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 21
Rules of Procedure
Rules 262A, 313 and 315
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Arts. 101, 102 and 267
Case law cited
Court of Appeal, 10 January 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023, 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, CJEU, Huawei v ZTE

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: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents.

Dhenne Avocats blog: FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.

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
Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Access Advance est admise à intervenir au soutien de NEC. Le renvoi préjudiciel est refusé et l'accès de l'intervenante aux informations FRAND confidentielles de TCL est limité par catégories.
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 2 863 637Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): NEC v TCL Communication (CFI, ORD_46842/2024, 2 October 2024) · NEC v TCL Deutschland (CFI, 12 August 2024)
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.