Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 15 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In proceedings UPC_CFI_1568/2025, UPC_CFI_1791/2025 and UPC_CFI_1793/2025 brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd and nine other defendants, The Hague Local Division rules on two requests by the represented defendants for leave to appeal. It refuses leave against the deferral of their preliminary objection to the main proceedings, but grants it against the confidentiality order of 27 May 2026. The Court of Appeal will thus be able to rule on phased access regimes for comparable licences, which are common in FRAND litigation.

Question

Should leave be granted to appeal an order deferring a preliminary objection to the main proceedings, and a confidentiality order that initially restricts access to comparable licences to representatives and experts?

Decision

The division doubts whether the requests, filed on the last day of the 15-day period, are admissible, since the Court of Appeal has indicated that they should be filed early enough for a decision within that period, but decides on the assumption that they are (paragraphs 1 and 3). Leave against the deferral is refused: the objection concerns only part of the case, the issue is materially the one already decided in Sun Patent Trust v Vivo, and the jurisdictional rules can be revisited later (paragraph 2). Leave against the confidentiality order is granted so that the Court of Appeal can decide whether a phased regime is permissible in FRAND cases, a regime that first limits access to third-party comparable licences to representatives and experts before extending it to a few of the defendants’ employees (paragraphs 4 to 6), and whether access may be confined to a few individuals across several defendants (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

• A request for leave filed on the last day of the 15-day period may face a challenge to its admissibility (paragraph 1).
• Phased confidentiality regimes in FRAND cases are now before the Court of Appeal (paragraphs 4 to 7).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 20.2, 190, 220.2, 221 and 262A

Case law cited

Speed Care Mineral v Teleflex Life Sciences II, Court of Appeal, 10 June 2026, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication, Paris Local Division, 30 October 2025, Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust, Court of Appeal, 16 March 2026, Oppo v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024, UPC_CoA_298-300/2024, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo and Ericsson v Asustek, Court of Appeal, 15 January 2026

Related decisions

• Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion, 27 May 2026, confidentiality order for which leave is granted.
• 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.