TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v ASUSTek Computer (CFI, UPC_CFI_757/2024, 24 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 24 August 2026 issued in the infringement action (UPC_CFI_757/2024) and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_539/2025) concerning EP 2 819 131, the judge-rapporteur of the Lisbon Local Division dismissed ASUSTek’s confidentiality request in Ericsson v ASUSTek. Ordered on 6 May 2026 to provide, within ten weeks, figures on its sales of the AX201 and AX211 modules, ASUSTek asked on 13 August 2026 for their use to be confined to the calculation of damages. The order matters because it places the burden on a party that waits until the enforcement stage to raise secrecy.

Question

May a confidentiality request under Rule 262A, applied by analogy to information disclosed under a court order, be made for the first time after the decision on the merits?

Decision

The judge accepted that Rule 262A may apply by analogy, but recalled that a party able to foresee the need for protection should, as a rule, raise it during the main proceedings (paragraph 10). A late request is not inadmissible as such, but the applicant must explain why it did not apply earlier (paragraph 12). ASUSTek had sought nothing on the merits, applied more than three months after the decision and a week before the deadline, and gave no reason (paragraph 13). The request also came after the administrative closure of the proceedings, which may be reopened only in exceptional circumstances (paragraph 15). Finally, restricting the purposes for which the information may be used is a matter of substantive law, not of the confidentiality regime (paragraph 16).

Key points for practice

• Confidentiality concerns arising from a duty to provide information should be anticipated and raised before the merits decision, so that the court can build protection into its order (paragraphs 10 and 12).
• Rule 262A governs access to information, not the use the receiving party may make of it (paragraph 16).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.2 and 262A

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, EOFlow v Insulet, 29 January 2026, Court of Appeal, Kodak v Fujifilm, 14 October 2025, Mannheim Local Division, InterDigital VC v The Walt Disney, 16 June 2026, Düsseldorf Local Division, Brita SE v Wessper, 27 May 2026, Düsseldorf Local Division, Canon v Katun Germany, 30 April 2026, The Hague Local Division, BTL Medizintechnik v Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems, 13 August 2026

Related decisions

• Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTek Computer, 6 May 2026, decision on the merits ordering the information to be provided.

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.