Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CoA, 2 July 2026)
| Date | 2 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Appeal |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_100/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC-COA-0000100/2026 |
| Parties | Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited , Infinix Mobility Limited , Tekpoint GmbH , IRD Distribuc… |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 16 July 2026 : Shenzhen Transsion v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CoA, 16 July 2026) UPC-COA-0000100/2026
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
In an order of 2 July 2026, given in joined appeal proceedings UPC_CoA_100/2026, 101/2026 and 102/2026, the standing judge of the Court of Appeal invites the parties to comment within five days on recharacterising the appeal lodged by Shenzhen Transsion and seven other companies against the confidentiality order of the Hague Local Division of 27 May 2026, made in favour of Ericsson in a FRAND dispute concerning EP 2 712 236, EP 3 836 631 and EP 3 245 744. The judge notes that the leave to appeal granted by the division on 15 June 2026 came out of time: the point matters to any party seeking leave to appeal at the end of the time limit.
Question
May the first-instance division still grant leave to appeal (Rule 220.2) after the 15-day period has expired, where the request was lodged the day before it expired?
Decision
In the judge’s view, where no decision is taken within 15 days of service despite a timely request, leave is deemed refused (paragraphs 8 and 9), it is then no longer for the division to decide, even retroactively (paragraph 10). Neither the UPC Agreement nor the Rules of Procedure give the Court of First Instance power to grant leave after that period, so the leave of 15 June 2026 does not change the analysis (paragraphs 12 and 13). The request of 10 June 2026 might however be regarded as including a request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 (paragraph 14), on which the parties are invited to comment.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a request for leave to appeal should be lodged early enough for the division to decide within 15 days, otherwise only discretionary review under Rule 220.3 remains available, within its own time limit.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 220.2, 220.3, 262.2 and 262A
- Case law cited
- Speed Care Mineral v Teleflex Life Sciences II, Court of Appeal, 10 June 2026
Related decisions
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: UPC Court of Appeal.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.
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
- claimantShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.14 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantTecno Mobile Limited10 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantItel Mobile Limited9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantInfinix Mobility Limited7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantTekpoint GmbH6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantIRD Distribuc2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 2 July 2026 Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CoA, 2 July 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_100/2026
- 16 July 2026 Shenzhen Transsion v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CoA, 16 July 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_100/2026
Le retrait des trois appels est autorisé avec l'accord d'Ericsson, sans décision sur les frais, et 50 % des taxes d'appel, soit 2 000 euros, sont remboursés.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Appeal
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Le juge de permanence considère que l’autorisation d’appel accordée après le délai de quinze jours est sans effet et invite les parties à s’expliquer sur une requalification en demande de révision discrétionnaire.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 2 712 236mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 3 836 631mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 3 245 744mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Shenzhen Transsion v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CoA, 16 July 2026) cited in this record
- Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 15 June 2026) cited in this record
- Speed Care Mineral v Teleflex Life Sciences II (CoA, 10 June 2026) cited in this record
- Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 27 May 2026) cited in this record
- Shenzhen Transsion (CoA, UPC_CoA_102/2026, 2 July 2026) cites this decision
- Shenzhen Transsion (CoA, UPC_CoA_101/2026, 2 July 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 712 236 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion (CFI, 26 August 2 · Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 13 | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
EP 3 836 631 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion (CFI, 26 August 2 · Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 13 | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
EP 3 245 744 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion (CFI, 26 August 2 · Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 13 | 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.