Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 13 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_1568/2025, UPC_CFI_1791/2025 and UPC_CFI_1793/2025 (EP 2 712 236, EP 3 836 631 and EP 3 245 744), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division refuses the Transsion defendants an extension of the deadline for their non-technical statement of defence, which includes the FRAND defence. The order shows that a continuing disagreement over the confidentiality regime does not, of itself, suspend the procedural timetable.

Question

Could the defendants obtain under Rule 9.3 a postponement of the deadline expiring on 15 May 2026 until two weeks after a confidentiality order allowing their representatives to share Ericsson’s restricted information with designated individuals?

Decision

The application is dismissed. Rule 9.3 is construed narrowly and requires exceptional circumstances (paragraph 13). The judge notes that the request was made one week before the deadline, that it was open-ended and conditional, that the defendants’ representatives have had access to the information since 13 February 2026 and their expert since 23 April 2026, and that litigation in several jurisdictions is a foreseeable consequence of a group’s worldwide business (paragraph 15). Access limited to representatives and experts does not, at this stage, jeopardise a fair trial: the confidential information concerns only one element of the FRAND defence, and new facts may still be raised, if need be in an additional written round (paragraph 15). The parties are to state their unavailability between 1 December 2026 and 31 May 2027.

Key points for practice

• A request for an extension tied to an uncertain event, with no specific date, is unlikely to succeed. The order distinguishes earlier cases in which a delayed Rule 262A order had justified an extension (paragraph 14).
• In FRAND litigation, the lack of access for the defendant’s own natural persons to comparable licences does not, at the statement of defence stage, justify extending the deadline (paragraph 15).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 23, 262.2 and 262A

Case law cited

Avago v Tesla, Hamburg Local Division, 28 November 2023 and 5 December 2023, Düsseldorf Local Division, 24 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_456/2023), Mannheim Local Division, 9 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_219/2023 and UPC_CFI_223/2023), The Hague Local Division, 13 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_191/2025)

Related decisions

• Ericsson v Transsion, 19 March 2026, order following the case management hearing, on the confidentiality regime.
• Ericsson v Transsion, 15 June 2026, order on applications for leave to appeal, one of them against a phased confidentiality order.
• Ericsson v Transsion, 26 August 2026, decision permitting withdrawal after 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.