Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 27 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 27 May 2026 in infringement actions UPC_CFI_1568/2025, UPC_CFI_1791/2025 and UPC_CFI_1793/2025 brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and nine other defendants, The Hague Local Division sets up a phased confidentiality regime for Ericsson’s comparable licences with third parties. In a first phase, access is limited to the representatives, one independent licensing and valuation expert and one licensing counsel, excluding any employee of the defendants. The order shows how comparable licences are handled in FRAND litigation. Leave to appeal it was later granted.

Question

May the patentee’s comparable licences initially be restricted to the defendant’s representatives and external experts, without access for its employees?

Decision

The reseller and distributor defendants do not need in-house access at this stage (paragraphs 23 and 24). Applying the balancing test of Rule 262A.5 and the requirement of Rule 262A.6 of at least one natural person per party, the division finds access limited to external persons appropriate for now, since it is unclear which of the more than twenty comparable licences are relevant, and holds that postponing in-house access does not infringe the right to a fair trial (paragraphs 26 to 28). It notes in particular that no payments have been made for years, that the defendants delayed the confidentiality discussions, that the FRAND defence was clarified late and that Transsion has not agreed to disclose its own licences (paragraph 29). The first phase lasts until a further order and will be reviewed at the latest at the interim conference. Two employees for all the represented defendants would then be considered reasonable (paragraph 31 and operative part). A culpable breach may attract a penalty of up to EUR 1,000,000.

Key points for practice

• In-house access to comparable licences may be deferred until their relevance has been identified (paragraph 28).
• The defendant’s conduct in negotiations and in the confidentiality discussions weighs in the balance (paragraph 29).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 45 and 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 190, 262, 262A, 263, 333, 354.3, 354.4, 360 and 365

Case law cited

Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025, Chint New Energy v JingAo Solar, 9 July 2025, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo, Court of Appeal, 26 January 2026, Ericsson v Asustek, Court of Appeal, 26 January 2026, Koninklijke Philips v TCL, The Hague Local Division, 9 April 2026

Related decisions

• Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion, 15 June 2026, order granting leave to appeal this order.
• Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion, 26 August 2026, later withdrawal following settlement.

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.