Nokia Technologies v Zhejiang Geely Holding Group (CFI, 20 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 20 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_1291/2026), made without hearing the respondents, the Mannheim Local Division prohibits Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales from pursuing before the Chinese courts an application for a worldwide ‘interim licence’ that would obstruct Nokia’s standard essential patent infringement actions before the UPC. It orders them to withdraw that application, for UPC territory, within 24 hours of service, subject to penalty payments. The order treats the Chinese interim licence as an anti-suit injunction and provisionally protects the patentee’s right to enforce its patents before the UPC, without touching the Chinese rate-setting action.

Facts and procedure

Nokia Technologies and Nokia Solutions and Networks are suing Geely group companies for infringement of EP 3 799 333 before the Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_662/2025) and of EP 4 090 075 before the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_661/2025). On 23 July 2025 Geely brought an action before the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court to set worldwide FRAND terms. On 8 April 2026 it applied there for a worldwide ‘interim licence’ by way of a preservation order, served on 15 April, with a hearing set for 23 April 2026. Nokia sought provisional measures without hearing the other side, without targeting the Chinese rate-setting action (paragraphs 4, 27 and 37).

The applicable law

Jurisdiction rests on Art. 31, 32(1)(a) and (c) and 33(1)(a) UPCA, read with Art. 7(2) and 71b(2) of Regulation 1215/2012. Provisional measures are governed by Art. 62 UPCA and Rules 206 to 213 RoP, the right of access to the court draws on Art. 17(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and on Directive 2004/48.

Question

Can the UPC prohibit a defendant from pursuing abroad an application for an interim licence designed to paralyse the infringement actions pending before it, and on what terms?

Decision

The Division accepts jurisdiction: the interim licence threatens an infringement within UPC territory, protection of the right of access is an ancillary competence, and the parallel German national action creates no lis pendens (paragraphs 15 to 17). The patentee has an inherent right to enforce its patents before the UPC (paragraphs 19 to 21). The interim licence operates in substance as an anti-suit injunction, is not needed to protect the Chinese action and aims to supply a defence before foreign courts, which the Division regards as abusive (paragraphs 22 to 32). Urgency flows from the Chinese hearing on 23 April and justifies proceeding ex parte (paragraphs 34 to 38), the form of the measure is irrelevant, only its effect counts, and withdrawal of the application is itself a provisional measure (paragraphs 39 to 42).

The order prohibits any equivalent step, requires withdrawal within 24 hours and the use of influence over group companies, sets maximum penalties of EUR 50,000,000 per breach and EUR 500,000 per day, makes continued enforceability conditional on security of EUR 600,000 within 20 days, orders the respondents to bear the costs, sets the value in dispute at EUR 5,000,000 and directs that a copy be sent to the European Commission (paragraphs 43 to 53).

Key points for practice

• The UPC considers itself competent to protect, by provisional measures, the conduct of actions pending before it against a foreign measure that would neutralise them.
• The Division draws a clear line between the Chinese rate-setting action, left untouched, and the interim licence, which alone is targeted.
• Practical point: an SEP holder that learns of a foreign interim licence application must move before the foreign hearing, an ex parte order remains subject to security, review and the commencement of main proceedings within the Rule 213.1 time limit.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 31, 32(1)(a) and (c), 33(1)(a), 60(6) and 62

Rules of Procedure

Rules 197.3, 206, 209, 211, 212, 213.1 and 354.3

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 7(2), 35 and 71b(2)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Directive 2004/48/EC

Case law cited

Panasonic v Oppo, Mannheim Local Division, 22 November 2024, InterDigital v Amazon, Mannheim Local Division, 22 December 2025, Nokia v Sunmi, Munich Local Division, 19 February 2025, Avago v Realtek, Munich Local Division, 9 December 2024, Huawei v Netgear, Munich Local Division, 11 December 2024, Carrier v Bitzer, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2024, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, ICPillar v SVF Holdco, Court of Appeal, 16 September 2024, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024)

Related decisions

• Nokia v Zhejiang Geely, 8 June 2026, later order in the same proceedings.

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.