TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v ASUSTek Computer (CFI, 29 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 29 July 2026, the Lisbon Local Division confirmed, at Ericsson’s sole request, the costs agreement reached with ASUSTek in the infringement action concerning EP 2 819 131, and ordered ASUSTek to pay EUR 150,000. The decision settles a practical point under Rule 365.1: confirming a settlement does not require a second joint request where the agreement has already been submitted to the Court jointly.

Question

Can a costs-only agreement, jointly submitted on 10 March 2026 before the merits decision of 6 May 2026, be confirmed under Rule 365.1 at the request of one party alone, after an appeal against the merits decision, and with a time limit for payment?

Decision

An agreement limited to costs is a settlement within Rule 365.1 where it resolves an existing or potential dispute. Classification turns on substance, not wording (paragraphs 9 to 12). The Rule does not clearly require a request from both parties and must be read without excessive formalism: since the agreement had been submitted jointly, a request by one party sufficed (paragraphs 13 to 18). The agreement provided for payment of EUR 150,000 by the losing party, not a mere ceiling calling for the procedure under Rules 150 et seq. (paragraphs 19 and 20). The Court retained jurisdiction, as the request did not alter the merits decision (paragraph 21), no time limit applies to a request for confirmation (paragraph 22), and one week from service was a reasonable period for payment (paragraph 23). Leave to appeal was granted.

Key points for practice

• A jointly submitted costs agreement may be confirmed, and become enforceable as a final decision, at the request of one party, with no time limit under Rule 365 (paragraphs 17 and 22).
• Drafting matters: a sum payable by the losing party, rather than a mere ceiling, avoids the separate cost assessment procedure (paragraph 20).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 73(2)(b)(ii)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.8, 150, 220.2 and 365.1

Case law cited

Astellas v Healios, Munich Central Division, 23 July 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 April 2025, UPC_CFI_363/2023 and UPC_CFI_677/2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, 2 June 2025, UPC_CFI_504/2023

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.