Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTek Computer (CFI, UPC_CFI_757/2024, 6 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 6 May 2026 given in the joined infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_757/2024 and UPC_CFI_539/2025), the Lisbon Local Division held that ASUSTek Computer infringed Ericsson’s EP 2 819 131 (an inductor arrangement reducing oscillator coupling), which expired on 15 February 2025, by marketing laptops fitted with the AX201 and AX211 Wi-Fi modules. The patent, invalid as granted for added matter, was maintained as per the first auxiliary request. The decision is of practical interest on three points: standing to seek revocation of an expired patent, the liability of the holder of a domain name and its sub-domains for offers made there, and the imposition of a penalty in the decision on the merits.

Facts and procedure

Ericsson sued ASUSTek and Digital River Ireland on 29 November 2024, withdrawal against the latter was permitted on 4 April 2025 (paragraphs 1 and 2). An application for provisional measures had been refused for lack of urgency (paragraph 7). ASUSTek counterclaimed for revocation, and Ericsson answered with seven auxiliary requests (paragraphs 3 and 10). The parties agreed on costs before the hearing of 24 March 2026 (paragraphs 5 and 6).

The applicable law

Added matter is assessed under Article 123(2) EPC and the Court of Appeal’s test (paragraphs 88 to 90), infringing acts fall under Article 25 UPCA, the notion of offer being construed autonomously and in an economic sense (paragraph 235), remedies are governed by Articles 64, 67, 68 and 82 UPCA.

Question

Can the expired patent be challenged, is it valid, if need be as amended, and is ASUSTek liable for offers made on its website and national sub-domains?

Decision

ASUSTek, sued for acts before expiry, has an interest in seeking revocation (paragraphs 49 to 52). The feature of “substantially symmetrical” loops, without specifying an axis, adds matter, since the application only disclosed symmetry about the horizontal axis (paragraphs 72 to 104), the first auxiliary request, drawn from the description, is admissible, clear, based on the application, novel and inventive (paragraphs 106 to 196). The AX201 and AX211 modules embody its features (paragraphs 197 to 228). Following the Court of Appeal’s notion of offer in Belkin v Philips, asus.com offers the products even without prices or direct purchase (paragraphs 235 and 236). The Division declined to apply to companies the liability regime for managing directors: the holder of a domain and its sub-domains is responsible for their content, even when run by affiliates (paragraphs 237 to 240). Infringement was declared for Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, from 2019 (AX201) and 2021 (AX211) until 15 February 2025, without a broader declaration since the patent has expired (paragraphs 242 and 243). ASUSTek is liable for damages to be assessed in separate proceedings (paragraph 246) and must provide, within ten weeks, an auditor-certified statement of quantities, prices and profits, on pain of a lump-sum penalty of up to EUR 50,000 and EUR 2,500 per day (paragraphs 249 to 254). The request to suspend pending an application for suspensive effect was refused for want of grounds (paragraph 257). The counterclaim was dismissed, the patent being valid as amended, and the decision is sent to the EPO (paragraphs 258 and 259). The value in dispute is EUR 2 million, no costs order was made given the parties’ agreement (paragraphs 260 and 261).

Key points for practice

• A defendant sued for acts before the patent expired retains an interest in seeking its revocation (paragraphs 49 to 52).
• A company holding a domain name cannot claim ownership of it while disclaiming liability for offers published on its national sub-domains (paragraph 239).
• An information order need not await the damages proceedings and may carry a penalty from the decision on the merits (paragraphs 249 and 253).
• Practical point: a proprietor suing on an expired patent for past acts should prepare auxiliary requests firmly based on the application as filed.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 47(6), 65(5), 67, 68, 74(1) and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 50.2, 118, 125, 265, 354.3 and 365.1

European Patent Convention

Arts 54, 56, 69, 84, 123(2) and 138

Case law cited

Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, UPC_CoA_699/2025, Court of Appeal, 7 July 2025, UPC_CoA_900/2025, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, VisionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, UPC_CoA_1/2024, NJOY Netherlands v VMR Products, Paris Central Division, 22 January 2025, Pari Pharma v Philips, Milan Central Division, 27 November 2025, Milan Central Division, 10 April 2026, UPC_CFI_480/2025, myStromer v Revolt Zycling, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 October 2023, Kaldewei v Bette, Düsseldorf Local Division, 3 July 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025, UPC_CFI_355/2023, Munich Local Division, 13 September 2024, UPC_CFI_390/2023, Munich Local Division, 22 August 2025, UPC_CFI_248/2024.

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.