Opens in a new tab

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion (CFI, 26 August 2026)

Date26 August 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionThe Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1568/2025
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-0001568/2025
PartiesTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited , Infinix Mobility …

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 · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Hague Local Division allows Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) to withdraw its three infringement actions against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and nine other defendants on EP 2 712 236, EP 3 836 631 and EP 3 245 744, following a settlement with all defendants. It reduces the court fee reimbursement to 25%, attributing the exceptional nature of the case to the claimant’s own procedural conduct.

Question

Should the regular 50% reimbursement rate under amended Rule 370.9(b) RoP be reduced where the claimant has multiplied proceedings and interlocutory requests?

Decision

The withdrawal is allowed in view of the Transsion defendants’ consent and the silence of defendant 9, which the division had announced it would treat as agreement (paragraph 2). As the withdrawal and reimbursement requests were filed in 2026, before the closure of the written procedure, the Rules as amended on 1 January 2026 apply and provide for 50%, the division reduces the rate to 25% under Rule 370.9(e) RoP, citing among other things parallel proceedings before several divisions, the request that The Hague lead on the FRAND issues, the splitting of the case into three, more than ten interlocutory applications, two case management hearings and an extensive confidentiality order (paragraph 3). The proposed value of EUR 12 million per case is accepted (paragraph 4).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 265 and 370.9

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

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

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_1568/2025 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. 13 May 2026 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 13 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1568/2025

    Le juge rapporteur rejette la demande de prorogation du délai du mémoire en défense non technique, faute de circonstances exceptionnelles : demande tardive, indéterminée et conditionnelle, accès déjà ouvert aux représentants et à l'expert.

  2. 14 May 2026 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion (CFI, UPC_CFI_1568/2025, 14 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1568/2025

    Le juge rapporteur proroge au 29 mai 2026 le délai du mémoire en défense non technique et invite Ericsson à se prononcer sur les nouvelles informations relatives à la confidentialité.

  3. 27 May 2026 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 27 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1568/2025

    Les licences comparables d'Ericsson sont, dans une première phase, réservées aux représentants et à des intervenants externes des défenderesses, l'accès de salariés étant différé jusqu'à une nouvelle ordonnance.

  4. 15 June 2026 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 15 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1568/2025

    L'autorisation de faire appel de l'ordonnance renvoyant l'exception préliminaire au fond est refusée, mais elle est accordée contre l'ordonnance de confidentialité instaurant un régime d'accès par phases aux licences comparables.

  5. 26 August 2026 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion (CFI, 26 August 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1568/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le désistement des trois actions est autorisé sans décision sur les frais, et le remboursement des frais de justice est ramené de 50 % à 25 % en raison du comportement procédural de la demanderesse.
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.

Patents mentioned

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.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 712 236Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CoA, 2 · Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 13		not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 3 836 631Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CoA, 2 · Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 13		not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 3 245 744Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CoA, 2 · Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 13		not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.