Orange v HMD Global (CFI, 10 April 2026)
| Date | 10 April 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_301/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_301/2025 |
| Parties | Orange SA v. HMD Global Oy |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 16 June 2026 : Orange v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_301/2025, 16 June 2026) UPC_CFI_301/2025
- 19 August 2026 : Orange v HMD Global (CFI, 19 August 2026) UPC_CFI_301/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
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
- For the Paris Division, the proprietor, as respondent to the FRAND defence, must be able to have the last word on it.
- A request for a further response may be granted without ruling on whether the opponent’s arguments were late.
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
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.
Parties
- defendantHMD Global Oy15 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantOrange SA4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 10 April 2026 Orange v HMD Global (CFI, 10 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_301/2025
- 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.
- 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
EP 2 345 029mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Orange v HMD Global (CFI, 19 August 2026) cited in this record
- Orange v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_301/2025, 16 June 2026) cited in this record
- Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 1 June 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 345 029 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.