Decisions of the Unified Patent Court recorded under "Standard-essential patents and FRAND" in UPC Litigation Watch, the case law database maintained by Dhenne Avocats.
Decisions of the Unified Patent Court concerning standard-essential patents and FRAND commitments: infringement notices, offers and counteroffers, willingness to take a licence, comparable licences, confidentiality of agreements, injunctions and provisional measures.
205 decisions recorded
By an order of 25 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_759/2025), the Court of Appeal rejected Sun Patent Trust's application for suspensive effect against the Paris Local Division's order of 31 July 2025 which, in its infringement action against Vivo (EP 3 852 468), gave…
By a procedural order of 21 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_248/2025, ORD_35006/2025), the presiding judge and rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (Judge U. Voß) largely granted the confidentiality application lodged by Huawei on 15 August 2025 in its infringement action against MediaTek concerning…
By order of 1 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_254/2025, ACT_14180/2025, ORD_33620/2025), Judge Voß, presiding judge and judge rapporteur of the Munich Local Division, classified as confidential the information on licence negotiations between Huawei and the MediaTek group contained in MediaTek Germany's request for production…
By a procedural order of 1 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_254/2025, ACT_14180/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division granted the confidentiality application of MediaTek Germany, defendant in Huawei Technologies' infringement action (EP 4 142 215).
By order of 24 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_850/2024), Judge Böttcher, judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division, confirmed his order of 20 June 2025 on the value in dispute in ZTE's infringement action against Samsung Electronics and five European subsidiaries on EP 3 905…
By order of 31 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_362/2025, ORD_33183/2025), the Paris Local Division (Presiding Judge Lignières as judge rapporteur, Judges Gillet and Kupecz) set the protection regime for confidential information produced by the patentee in Sun Patent Trust's infringement action against three Vivo…
By an order of 31 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_361/2025), the full panel of the Paris Local Division set the regime protecting the confidential information produced by Sun Patent Trust in its infringement action against three Vivo companies (EP 3 852 468).
By order of 9 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_445/2025), Judge Tochtermann (Mannheim Local Division) dealt with the refusal by the Disney companies' representatives to acknowledge receipt of the anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) granted on 27 May 2025 to InterDigital VC Holdings and InterDigital CE Patent…
By an order of 20 June 2025 (actions UPC CFI 318/2024 and 730/2024, EP 2 727 242), the Milan Local Division (Judges Perrotti, presiding, Zana, rapporteur, Lopes and Norrenbrock, technically qualified judge) dismissed Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson's application for panel review of the…
By an order of 20 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_850/2024, EP 3 905 730), issued of the court's own motion by Judge-rapporteur Böttcher (Mannheim Local Division), the value in dispute of the whole proceedings brought by ZTE against Samsung Electronics and five group companies…
By an order of 20 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_319/2024 and UPC_CFI_728/2024), the Milan Local Division, on Ericsson's application for panel review under Rule 333, upheld the judge-rapporteur's refusal to set up an "external eyes only" confidentiality regime in Ericsson's infringement action against ASUSTEK…
By order of 30 May 2025, the Court of Appeal rules on Belkin’s appeal and Koninklijke Philips’ cross-appeal against the Munich Local Division’s order of 17 December 2024, which had imposed a penalty payment of EUR 46,000 on Belkin for late compliance…
By order of 28 May 2025, the judge rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division provisionally set the value of Samsung Electronics' infringement action on EP 4 050 804 against three ZTE companies (UPC_CFI_189/2025) at EUR 4,000,000 and ordered Samsung to pay an…
The regime reserved to external counsel and experts only is rejected. Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A require a fair balance between the parties’ opposing interests, and Rule 262A.6, as interpreted by the Court of Appeal on 12 February 2025, requires that…