13910160652
010-52852558
Home > Judicial Development > Patent

No PI for Ericsson in Lisbon

Post Time:2024-10-17 Source:juve-patent Author:Konstanze Richter Views:
font-size:

In its first judgment, the UPC local division Lisbon has proven it is a force to be reckoned with. The judges dismissed Ericsson's application for a PI against AsusTek, but also commented on the question of validity and infringement.


The local division Lisbon took just over a month to hand down its first UPC ruling. Ericsson had filed a motion for preliminary injunction against AsusTek and two co-defendants, Arvato and Digital River, on 14 June. The Swedish company is convinced that the defendants are infringing its EP 2 819 131 with their laptops and notebooks that contain either the Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX211 Module or the Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX201 Modules.


The patent protects an inductor layout for reduced VCO coupling and is relevant to semiconductors in mobile devices. The patent is not an SEP, rather an implementation patent. EP 131 expires in early 2025.


The judges around presiding judge Rute Lopes dismissed the application, basing their decision on a lack of urgency. Although this is sufficient to dismiss a PI, they also made a preliminary assessment of validity and infringement in their judgment and found both to be likely.


Short wait for Ericsson


On 31 July, the defendants lodged an objection arguing the UPC lacks international jurisdiction and the Lisbon local division lacks competence. Furthermore, they denied infringement and further asserted that the patent is invalid. Lastly, they argued unreasonable delay on the part of Ericsson in lodging the application and consequently lack of urgency.


After an oral hearing in September, the Portugese division has handed down its ruling less than five weeks later. In its judgment, the court asserted its competence and rejected the PI due to lack of urgency, mainly based on the date of the alleged infringement in 2019.


In addition, the judges addressed the issues of validity and infringement. In their analysis, they found the patent “more likely than not” to be valid and infringed (case ID: UPC_CFI_317/2024, ACT_35572/2024).


This marks the first and so far only case of the local division Lisbon.