Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, UPC_CFI_850/2026, 26 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 26 May 2026, the Lisbon Local Division dismisses the application by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) and three of its group companies to strike out, under Rules 360 and 361, the injunction requests made by Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. in infringement action UPC_CFI_850/2026 concerning EP 4 123 910. Ericsson relied on its own actions against Transsion before other divisions, including a request to set FRAND terms for a worldwide cross-licence covering that patent. The division declines to neutralise in advance a patentee’s action and grants leave to appeal.

Question

Does an injunction request become devoid of purpose, or manifestly bound to fail, merely because another division has been asked to set FRAND terms for a cross-licence covering the patent in suit?

Decision

Rule 360 requires an event occurring after the action was filed. Ericsson relies instead on an earlier action and a possible future decision, and Transsion retains an interest as long as no court has examined its claim (paragraphs 6 to 12). Rule 361 is reserved for clear-cut cases, where the lack of foundation is evident on a preliminary review, and caution is needed with complex actions (paragraphs 13 to 16). The patentee may sue to protect its rights, in line with the CJEU’s judgment in Huawei v ZTE, and any limits on an injunction are assessed on the evidence. Ericsson’s argument, which depends on the outcome of other proceedings, is not manifest (paragraphs 17 to 20). Ericsson’s requests are dismissed and leave to appeal is granted.

Key points for practice

• A request to set FRAND terms pending elsewhere does not by itself make an injunction request devoid of purpose (paragraphs 10 to 12).
• Dismissal under Rule 361 remains exceptional in complex disputes (paragraphs 15 and 16).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(1) and 73(2)(b)(ii)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 220.2, 265.1, 360, 361 and 363.2

Case law cited

Volkswagen v Network System Technologies, Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024, Paris Central Division, 16 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_164/2024), Court of Appeal, 9 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_584/2024), Ballinno v Kinexon, Court of Appeal, 12 May 2025, REEL International v Fives ECL, Munich Central Division, 24 March 2026, CJEU, Huawei v ZTE, 16 July 2015

Related decisions

• Shenzhen Transsion v Ericsson, 26 May 2026, order of the same day on security for costs.
• Shenzhen Transsion v Ericsson, 14 July 2026, later withdrawal of the action.

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.