Opens in a new tab

Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, 14 July 2026)

Date14 July 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionLisbon (PT) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_850/2026
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-0000850/2026
PartiesShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Ericsson Holding International B.V. , Ericsson Telecommunicati…

Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.

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

English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.

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_850/2026 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. 7 April 2026 Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, 7 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_850/2026

    Sur accord des parties, les délais de l’exception préliminaire et du mémoire en défense sont alignés pour les quatre défenderesses, au 1er mai et au 1er juillet 2026.

  2. 26 May 2026 Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, UPC_CFI_850/2026, 26 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_850/2026

    Les demandes d'Ericsson fondées sur les règles 360 et 361 sont rejetées : une demande de fixation des conditions FRAND pendante devant une autre division ne prive pas d'objet la demande d'injonction de Transsion. L'appel est autorisé.

  3. 26 May 2026 Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, UPC_CFI_850/2026, 26 May 2026, doc. 2) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_850/2026

    La juge rapporteure de la division locale de Lisbonne impose à Shenzhen Transsion une garantie de 100 000 euros, l'exécution d'une condamnation aux frais en Chine étant excessivement lourde.

  4. 14 July 2026 Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, 14 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_850/2026

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le retrait de l'action en contrefaçon est autorisé et la procédure close. Chaque partie supporte ses frais, la valeur du litige est fixée à 1 500 000 euros et la garantie de 100 000 euros est libérée.
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 4 123 910Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CoA, 11 · Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, UP · Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, UP · Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, 7
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.