Opens in a new tab

Orange v HMD Global (CFI, 10 April 2026)

Date10 April 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_301/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_301/2025
PartiesOrange SA v. HMD Global Oy

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 an order of 10 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_301/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division allows Orange to file a further written response on the FRAND defence set out by HMD Global in the second part of its rejoinder, in the infringement action on EP 2 345 029. Without deciding whether HMD’s arguments were new, she bases the order on fairness and the adversarial principle: since the FRAND defence is HMD’s, Orange must be able to have the last word on it. HMD’s alternative request to reply in turn is refused.

Question

May the claimant, under Rules 9.2 and 36, respond in writing to the FRAND defence set out in the defendant’s rejoinder, where the Rules provide no specific exchange for that defence?

Decision

Orange asked for the facts and arguments in Part II of the rejoinder to be declared inadmissible as late or, in the alternative, for leave to respond. HMD argued that its submissions did not depart substantially from the statement of defence. The judge notes that, unlike a counterclaim for revocation or an application to amend, the non-technical FRAND defence is not governed by any specific provision of the Rules, so the principles of fairness and adversarial proceedings in point 2 of the Preamble apply. Without ruling on lateness, she admits Orange’s response on pages 14 to 86 of the rejoinder. No further response is justified for HMD, whose next pleading will be its rejoinder on the application to amend the patent (Rule 32.3). The order may be reviewed under Rule 333.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Preamble, point 2, and Rules 9.2, 29, 32.3, 36 and 333

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_301/2025 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

  1. 10 April 2026 Orange v HMD Global (CFI, 10 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_301/2025
  2. 16 June 2026 Orange v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_301/2025, 16 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_301/2025

    La valeur du litige est fixée à 3 millions d’euros et les parties doivent déposer, avant le 30 juin 2026, leurs demandes consolidées et leur accord sur les frais récupérables.

  3. 19 August 2026 Orange v HMD Global (CFI, 19 August 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_301/2025

    The Paris local division dismisses Orange infringement action: the USAC standard does not establish that the claimed decoding method is carried out.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La juge rapporteure autorise Orange à répondre par écrit à la défense FRAND exposée dans la duplique de HMD et rejette la demande subsidiaire de HMD de répliquer à son tour.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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 2 345 029Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Orange v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_301/2025, 16 June 2026)
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.