Opens in a new tab

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTeK Computer (CoA, 26 January 2026)

Date26 January 2026
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal RoP220.2
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_631/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CoA_631/2025 · App_33679/2025 · APL_32571/2025
PartiesTELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. ASUSTEK Computer inc., Arvato Netherlands B. V. and APPLE Inc. (intervener)

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

Dhenne Avocats · 19 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

Access by an employee of the opposing party is necessary where the confidential licence agreements are those on which the patent holder bases its arguments on FRAND terms, a central aspect of the case (para. 26). The regime adopted grants access to external counsel, their assistants, two licensing experts and one natural person per party. It is accompanied by a ban on those persons taking part in licence negotiations with the counterparties to the disclosed agreements for five years, and by a penalty of one million euros per culpable breach.

Why it matters

Same panel, same day and same question as in Sun Patent Trust v Vivo, but with the ban extended from two to five years and a quantified sanction. The Court therefore sets no single standard: it calibrates by reference to the person’s role and actual competitive exposure. At appeal level, it upholds the order of the Milan Local Division of 28 April 2025, itself based on Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi of 12 February 2025.

Practical point

The duration of the negotiation ban is open to negotiation. It must be documented in advance through the exact scope of the employee’s duties and the list of counterparties actually concerned, failing which the opposing party will obtain the longest duration.

Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats. Only the official text of the decision is authoritative.

Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

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

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show, 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_CoA_631/2025 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. 23 September 2025 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTeK Computer (CoA, 23 September 2025) Application Rop313 · UPC_CoA_631/2025

    La cour d’appel admet Apple à intervenir au soutien d’Ericsson dans les appels sur le régime de confidentialité, une ordonnance provisoire faisant partie du résultat de l’action au sens de la règle 313.1.

  2. 26 January 2026 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTeK Computer (CoA, 26 January 2026) Appeal RoP220.2 · UPC_CoA_631/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act
Appeal RoP220.2
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
L'accès d'un salarié de la partie adverse est nécessaire lorsque les accords de licence confidentiels sont ceux sur lesquels le titulaire fonde son argumentation relative aux conditions FRAND, laquelle constitue un aspect central de l'affaire (§ 26). Le régime retenu ouvre l'accès aux conseils externes, à leurs assistants, à deux experts en licences et à une personne physique par partie. Il est assorti d'une interdiction faite à ces personnes de participer aux négociations de licence avec les contreparties des accords communiqués pendant cinq ans, et d'une pénalité d'un million d'euros par manquement fautif.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

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.

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.