2026-04-09 - LD The Hague - Philips v. TCL - UPC-CFI-0001079/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-CFI-0001079/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. al
Kernaussage: The Hague Local Division (Brinkman as presiding judge and rapporteur) issues a substantial procedural order in Philips's cellular-SEP infringement actions against the six-entity TCL group on EP 3 103 116 and EP 2 420 029.
2026-04-09 - LD The Hague - Philips
v.
TCL - UPC-CFI-0001079/2025
notable
The Hague Local Division (Brinkman as presiding judge and rapporteur) issues a substantial procedural order in Philips's cellular-SEP infringement actions against the six-entity TCL group on EP 3 103 116 and EP 2 420 029. The order: (i) classifies the SoC paragraphs 9–10 and Exhibit CE9 (a prior Philips/TCL agreement) as confidential under R. 262.2 RoP and adopts the full publication/redaction/oral-hearing regime requested by Philips; (ii) classifies TCL's SoD business figures (paras. 96, 102–105, 107, 109–120 and Exhibits HE 1 and HE 2) as confidential under R. 262A RoP, with calibrated access on the Philips side limited to Philips's legal representatives and three named legal-department employees; (iii) orders mutual production under R. 103 RoP of comparable cellular SEP licence agreements (Philips: licences in its Cellular SEPs Portfolio with handset manufacturers; TCL: licences declared essential to UMTS, LTE and 5G — but rejects 'including but not limited to' as too vague) within two weeks; (iv) at this written-proceedings stage, adopts an External-Eyes-Only-style regime for the comparable licences — TCL's argument from the CoA's Sun/Vivo and Asus/Apple orders (UPC_CoA_631/2025 and UPC_CoA_632/2025, 26 January 2026) is distinguished because in those CoA cases the licence agreements had already been deemed relevant in the proceedings, whereas here it remains to be seen whether any of the licences will be relied upon. Access restricted to (a) the parties' UPC representatives and (b) up to three external economic experts per party (not employees of any licensee/licensor); the TCL defendants are treated as one party. (v) Licensing bar calibrated at 2 years (per CoA Sun/Vivo / Asus/Apple), not Philips's requested 5 years. Penalty for breach: up to €1,000,000 per breach. Confidentiality survives termination; documents to be destroyed within two weeks of termination. (vi) Both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation will be heard in the Local Division (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA); a TQJ has been assigned. The Court's reasoning expressly tracks the CoA's R. 262A.5/.6 RoP proportionality assessment — necessity, role, relevance and trustworthiness — and the trade-secret criteria of Art. 2(1) Trade Secrets Directive 2016/943 (not directly applicable but principles similar per CoA).