2026-07-16 - CoA - Transsion et al. v. Ericsson - UPC-COA-0000102/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-COA-0000102/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Final Order
- Parteien:
- Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited, Infinix Mobility Limited, Tekpoint GmbH, IRD Distribuce, S.R.O, x-kom GmbH, NTT System S.A. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
Kernaussage: [Note: this is one of three appeals — UPC_CoA_100/2026, UPC_CoA_101/2026 and UPC_CoA_102/2026 — disposed of by a single Court of Appeal order of 16 July 2026.
2026-07-16 - CoA - Transsion et al.
v.
Ericsson - UPC-COA-0000102/2026
routine
[Note: this is one of three appeals — UPC_CoA_100/2026, UPC_CoA_101/2026 and UPC_CoA_102/2026 — disposed of by a single Court of Appeal order of 16 July 2026. The registry indexes the same decision under node 183813 (UPC_CoA_100/2026) and node 183812 (UPC_CoA_101/2026); the yoUPC database holds no separate node indexing this 16 July order under UPC_CoA_102/2026, although the order disposes of that appeal too.] After Ericsson's FRAND-context infringement actions against Shenzhen Transsion over 4G LTE and 5G NR patents before The Hague Local Division, the appellants challenged the CFI's phased confidentiality regime under R. 262A and R. 262.2 RoP; the appeal had been assigned to the standing judge to clarify whether it fell to be treated as an appeal under R. 220.2 RoP or as a request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP. Before that question was resolved, the parties settled and Shenzhen Transsion applied under R. 265 RoP to withdraw all three appeals. The standing judge held that R. 265.1 RoP — under which a claimant may withdraw as long as there is no final decision, unless the other party has a legitimate interest in the action being decided — applies mutatis mutandis to an appellant withdrawing its appeal (following 10x v Curio), that a single legally qualified judge may decide under R. 1.2(b) RoP where the action is assigned to a single judge, and that the withdrawal was admissible because no final order on the confidentiality application existed while the appeal was pending (following Avago v Tesla). Ericsson's consent negated any legitimate interest, no cost decision was required given the parties' agreement to bear their own costs, and 50 % of the appeal fees fell to be reimbursed under R. 370.9(b) RoP as it reads since 1 January 2026 because the withdrawal was filed before closure of the written procedure.