Nokia Technologies v Shanghai Sunmi Technology (CFI, 19 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 19 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_112/2025, ACT_7300/2025), made without hearing the respondents, the Munich Local Division prohibited Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd and two companies of its group from seeking or pursuing before the Chinese courts an anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunction that would prevent Nokia from pursuing infringement actions on patents asserted as standard essential before the UPC, or from enforcing the resulting judgments. The order matters for SEP litigation: it treats the filing of such an application as an imminent infringement under Art. 62 UPCA and backs the prohibition with penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per day, while confining the measure to China.

Facts and procedure

Nokia Technologies Oy and another Nokia group company had been negotiating since January 2021 a licence to their 2G, 3G, 4G and WiFi portfolio on FRAND terms. On 3 January 2025, while negotiations were ongoing and without informing Nokia, Sunmi brought a global rate-setting action before the Kunming Intermediate People’s Court. Nokia learned of it on 26 January 2025 (paragraphs 3, 4 and 38). Nokia brought infringement actions on EP 2 243 229 before the Munich Local Division and on EP 3 799 333 before the Mannheim Local Division, and filed the present application for provisional measures on 12 February 2025. After the panel gave indications on 17 February and heard the applicants alone on 18 February, the order was made by the panel presided over by Ulrike Voß (Daniel Voß as judge rapporteur, with Walter Schober). It was to be served on the first respondent at the EuroCIS trade fair in Düsseldorf.

The applicable law

International jurisdiction rested on Art. 31 UPCA read with Art. 71b(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation (paragraph 19), subject-matter jurisdiction on Art. 32(1)(a) and (c) UPCA, and the competence of the local division on Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA (paragraphs 20, 21 and 24). The protected right was characterised as a property-like right grounded in the right of access to a court under Arts 47 and 17(2) of the Charter and in the national tort rules relied on by Nokia, applicable through Art. 24(1)(e) UPCA (paragraphs 28 to 30). An infringement is imminent where serious and concrete indications make it clearly foreseeable (paragraph 31).

Question

May the UPC, under Art. 62 UPCA, provisionally and without hearing the respondent first, prohibit it from seeking before a foreign court an injunction that would obstruct infringement actions pending before the UPC and the enforcement of its decisions?

Decision

The division held that filing the anti-suit application is itself the infringing act, since that filing is what leads the foreign court to grant the injunction (paragraph 33). The parallel Chinese proceedings, the anti-anti-suit injunction already obtained from the Munich Regional Court on other patents, Sunmi’s conduct during negotiations and the availability of such injunctions under Chinese law made an imminent filing more likely than not (paragraphs 34 to 40). Urgency was established, as the application was filed some three weeks after Nokia learned of the Kunming action and a Chinese injunction can be granted quickly without hearing the patentee (paragraphs 44 to 50). The balance of interests favoured Nokia, since Sunmi kept its rate-setting action, in which the FRAND questions can be decided by the Chinese court (paragraphs 51 to 56). Hearing the respondents first would have exposed Nokia to a pre-emptive injunction (paragraphs 57 and 58). The division refused, however, a worldwide scope, there being no indication of a filing outside China (paragraph 60), waived security on account of exceptional circumstances (paragraphs 63 and 64), and set the time limit for the main action at 31 calendar days or 20 working days from service, whichever is longer (paragraph 66).

Key points for practice

• Filing an anti-suit application abroad may be treated as an imminent infringement justifying provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA.
• The measure is confined to the courts for which a concrete risk is shown: the worldwide scope sought was refused (paragraph 60).
• The order was made without a prior hearing and without security, the respondent being able to apply for review within 30 days of enforcement (Rule 212.3).
• Practical point: a SEP holder facing a rate-setting action abroad should move quickly before the UPC, documenting the concrete indications of an imminent filing and the practice of the foreign court.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 24(1)(e), 31, 32(1)(a) and (c), 33(1)(a), 60, 62 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 197.3, 206, 209, 211, 212, 213.1 and 354

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 71b(2)

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Arts 17(2) and 47

Case law cited

Avago v Realtek, Munich Local Division, 9 December 2024, Novartis v Celltrion, Düsseldorf Local Division, 6 September 2024, Valeo Electrification v Magna PT, Düsseldorf Local Division, 31 October 2024, Häfele v Kunststoff KG Nehl, Munich Local Division, 25 November 2024, Ortovox v Mammut, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024

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.