TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v ASUSTek Computer (CFI, UPC_CFI_2665/2026, 24 August 2026)

Date	24 August 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Lisbon (PT) Local Division
Type of action	Other
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_2665/2026
Registry reference	UPC-CFI-0002665/2026
Parties	TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. ASUSTek Computer Inc.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 24 August 2026 (UPC_CFI_2665/2026 and UPC_CFI_539/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Lisbon Local Division stayed Ericsson’s applications against ASUSTek for re-establishment of rights (Rule 320 RoP) and for costs (Rule 150 RoP), pending the Court of Appeal’s decision on the appeal against the order of 29 July 2026 which had confirmed a costs agreement of EUR 150,000. Both parties agreed to the stay. The order is of limited reach, but shows Rule 295(m) RoP being used to avoid conflicting decisions on the same costs issue.

Question

Should applications for re-establishment of rights and for costs be stayed where the outcome of a pending costs appeal may render them moot?

Decision

The judge noted that Rule 295(m) RoP allows a stay in cases not specifically listed where the proper administration of justice so requires, and that, in light of the principles of proportionality and flexibility in the Preamble to the UPCA, a stay must be necessary and strike a fair balance (paragraphs 9 and 10). Re-establishment might prove unnecessary if the costs order is upheld on appeal, and ruling in parallel would risk inconsistent decisions (paragraph 12). The stay was therefore granted (paragraph 13).

Key points for practice

A precautionary application for re-establishment of rights may be stayed until the appeal on the underlying costs issue is decided (paragraph 12).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Preamble, recital 6
Rules of Procedure: Rules 150, 295(m) and 320

Related decisions

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTek Computer, 6 May 2026, decision on the merits.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTek Computer, 29 July 2026, order confirming the costs agreement, under appeal.

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents.

Dhenne Avocats blog: FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.

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_2665/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantTELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSONnormalised name: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson34 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantASUSTek Computer Inc.26 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Other
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division locale de Lisbonne suspend les demandes d'Ericsson en restauration de droits et en fixation de frais jusqu'à la décision de la cour d'appel sur l'ordonnance relative aux frais.
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.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v ASUSTek Computer (CFI, 29 July 2026) cited in this record
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTek Computer (CFI, UPC_CFI_757/2024, 6 May 2026) cited in this record

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.

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.