Opens in a new tab

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion (CFI, UPC_CFI_710/2026, 14 September 2026)

Date14 September 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_710/2026
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-0000710/2026
PartiesTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited, Itel Mobile Limited, Infinix Mobility Li…

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

In a decision of 14 September 2026, the Paris Central Division permitted Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson to withdraw its infringement actions (UPC_CFI_1571/2025 and UPC_CFI_710/2026, EP 3 672 085 and EP 3 659 314) following a settlement with Shenzhen Transsion, and closed both proceedings. The interest lies in the refund of court fees: the division applied Rule 370.9 as in force since 1 January 2026 (50%), then cut the rate to 35% on account of the claimant’s procedural conduct.

Question

What share of the court fees should be refunded to a claimant withdrawing before the written procedure closes, and may that share be reduced in light of how the proceedings were conducted?

Decision

The withdrawal reflects the parties’ common will. Defendants 8 and 9, which did not respond, were deemed to agree, and no costs decision was needed since each party bears its own costs (paragraphs 4 to 6). The amended Rule 370.9 applies because the request was filed after 1 January 2026 (paragraphs 7 to 10). As the refund should remain proportionate to the work the Court has already done, the division found exceptional circumstances under Rule 370.9(e): parallel proceedings before several divisions, a request that The Hague take the lead on FRAND issues, and numerous applications, including on confidentiality (paragraphs 11 and 12). The refund was reduced to 35% (paragraph 13) and the value set at EUR 4 million per action (paragraph 14).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 265, 302 and 370.9
Other provisions
Administrative Committee decision of 4 November 2025 amending the table of court fees
Case law cited
VMR Products v NJOY Netherlands, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2026, DexCom v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 24 January 2025, Hurom v NUC Electronics, Court of Appeal, 26 May 2026

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).

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_710/2026 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

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
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La division centrale, section de Paris, autorise le désistement d'Ericsson et clôt les deux procédures, mais réduit le remboursement des frais de justice de 50 % à 35 % en raison de son comportement procédural.
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 3 672 085Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion (CFI, UPC_CFI_157
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 3 659 314Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion (CFI, UPC_CFI_157
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.