Irides: Weekly global patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: Brazil and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

The Irides Weekly Update is our round-up of patent litigation news highlights from around the world.
 

Brazil

Court lifts PI against Samsung 5G devices in view of Court expert report on essentiality. [Samsung Eletrônica v ZTE Corporation]

ZTE previously obtained a preliminary injunction (PI) against Samsung’s 5G devices in Brazil on the basis of ZTE’s patent BR 11 2015 017291-1, which ZTE asserted was essential to the standard. The PI was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 4 February 2026, considering there was reasonable evidence of infringement. 

Court-appointed expert and his technical assistant have since issued their opinion considering the alleged infringement of the patent in suit.  They concluded that the patent, which relates to adaptive modulation and coding, is not essential to the 5G-NR standard (having regard to the position both in the literal sense and based on equivalence). The opinion also considered test reports in respect of the functionality of the Samsung devices in question.  These test reports showed that the Samsung devices implement the 5G standard, but given the finding of non-essentiality, did not show that the devices otherwise infringe the patent.

In view of the opinion by the Court expert opinion, the Court has now lifted the PI.
 

UPC

Mannheim Local Division clarifies scope of FRAND Specific Claims in Ericsson's multi-divisional SEP enforcement against Transsion. [Ericsson v Transsion UPC_CFI_1570/2025]

On 26 May 2026, the Judge-Rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division (LD) issued an order on a precautionary preliminary objection raised by the Transsion defendants concerning the scope of Ericsson's FRAND-related claims.

The case forms part of broader multi-divisional SEP enforcement by Ericsson against the Transsion group, with parallel infringement actions pending before The Hague LD and the Paris Central Division. Ericsson's statement of claim before the Mannheim LD contained a FRAND Specific Condition that injunctive relief and related remedies were sought only on the condition that Transsion did not, within two weeks of a finding of infringement, commit to entering into a cross-licence on terms either matching Ericsson's July 2025 offer or on terms determined by the UPC to be FRAND-compliant. The FRAND Specific Claims seeking a declaration that Ericsson's July 2025 offer was FRAND, or alternatively a court-determined FRAND rate, were filed exclusively before The Hague LD, with Ericsson expressly reserving the right to bring them before the Mannheim LD only if The Hague did not adjudicate on them.

The Transsion defendants raised a precautionary preliminary objection, arguing that if the FRAND Specific Claims or the FRAND Injunction were considered to be pending before Mannheim, the UPC lacked jurisdiction to determine them. They also requested the Court to confirm that no preliminary objection deadline had been triggered in the Mannheim proceedings by Ericsson's reservation.

The Judge-Rapporteur confirmed that no ruling on the merits of the objection was required, since the precautionary scenarios on which it was based had not materialised. The FRAND Specific Claims were not pending before the Mannheim LD, and the FRAND Specific Condition did not constitute a request for a FRAND determination by that division as it was a condition attached to the injunction, not a freestanding claim for declaratory relief. The question of whether such a conditional injunction was procedurally permissible was expressly left open for the merits panel. The precautionary objection was nonetheless noted on the record should the merits panel take a different view and costs were reserved to the main proceedings.
 

UPC

Court of Appeal clarifies decision by default against appellants who fail to provide security for costs. [Microsoft v Suinno UPC_CoA_21/2026]

On 22 May 2026, the Court of Appeal issued a decision by default against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, dismissing its appeal against the Paris Central Division's revocation of EP 2 671 173 in its entirety. The decision serves as a reminder of the consequences of non-compliance with security for costs orders.

By way of background, Suinno had brought an infringement action against Microsoft before the Paris Central Division (CD). Microsoft counterclaimed for revocation. The infringement action was dismissed by default in July 2025 after Suinno failed to provide court-ordered security for costs. The CD subsequently revoked the patent in full and ordered Suinno to bear Microsoft's costs of the counterclaim proceedings. Suinno appealed that revocation decision.

On 7 April 2026, the Court of Appeal ordered Suinno to provide security for Microsoft's costs of the appeal in the amount of €600,000 within three weeks and expressly notified Suinno that a decision in default could be given if security was not provided within the set time period. Suinno applied to have that order set aside, but the application was rejected on 28 April 2026. Suinno then failed to provide any security within the required period, prompting Microsoft to apply for a decision by default.

The Court of Appeal granted the application and clarified the procedural framework in doing so. A decision in default can be given pursuant to r. 355.1 RoP if a party fails to take a step with the applicable time limit and, subject to an assessment of the balance of interests, the Court can exercise its discretion to give a decision in default without examining the merits of the action.  However, under r. 355.2 RoP, a decision by default against a defendant requires the claimant to establish that the facts justify the remedy sought. The rules apply equally to appeal proceedings and the Court confirmed that, for the purposes of r. 355.2, the appellant is treated as the claimant in appeal proceedings as it is the appellant who seeks the remedy of setting aside the decision below. It follows that where an appellant defaults, r. 355.2 RoP does not apply and the respondent is not required to file a statement of response or present facts in support of the first instance decision. To require otherwise would defeat the purpose of security for costs as the respondent would incur further expense whilst facing exactly the risk of non-recovery the security order was designed to prevent. The Court stated that “It is only under exceptional circumstances that the Court may derogate from this general rule.", and Suinno advanced no reasons to justify such an exception.

Suinno remains liable for Microsoft's costs of the appeal proceedings, in addition to the €350,000 costs order arising from the infringement proceedings.
 

UPC

Hamburg Local Division penalises defendants for website and marketplace offerings despite disclaimers. [Occlutech v. Lepu Medical  UPC_CFI_553/2025]

On 20 May 2026, the Hamburg Local Division (LD) ordered penalty payments of EUR 58,800 against two defendants for non‑compliance with a final order. The order for payment follows a preliminary injunction granted in October 2025 in favour of Occlutech GmbH, in which the defendants, Lepu Medical, were prohibited from offering, placing on the market or using (or importing or storing for those purposes) certain braided occlusion devices in a number of countries (Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands and Ireland). The injunction was reinforced by a penalty of up to €250,000 per individual case of non‑compliance pursuant to r. 354.3 RoP. The applicant subsequently requested the ordering of penalty payments, alleging that the defendants continued to offer the occlusion devices via the defendants’ own website, a third‑party B2B marketplace and via direct communications.

The LD held that the defendants had failed to demonstrate full and permanent compliance with the injunction. It reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the defendant to show that a penalty-reinforced order has been complied with in full, and that an obligation to refrain from an act includes taking all reasonable and feasible measures necessary to eliminate any continuing disturbance created by the (alleged) act of infringement.

In relation to the defendants’ own website, the Court found that the offer of the infringing product on the website, which was accessible in Germany, constituted an “offering” within the meaning of Art. 25 UPCA. The presentation of the product under its commercial name, the description of technical features and medical indications, and the presence of an “Enquire now” function were sufficient, even in the absence of pricing information. The defendants explained that a disclaimer had been added to their website but had later been removed by a third party responsible for updating their website. The Court rejected this defence, holding that the defendants had acted negligently and remained responsible at all times for the content of their website.

The Court took a similar approach to the use of the third‑party B2B marketplace, which was a platform designed for medical manufacturers and distributors to showcase their expertise in the industry. It was undisputed that the defendants had created and supplied the content for the listing, and the Court held that geo‑blocking of purchase options alone was insufficient where the injunction separately prohibited offering and placing on the market. Further, despite a disclaimer that the device was not available in certain countries being present on the product page, the Court held that it was not sufficient as it was contradicted by other elements of the website including the fact that the product page was automatically translated into German and the Applicant’s counsel were able to send a request via the online form available on the page. This led to correspondence between the Applicant’s counsel and the second defendant’s key account manager which further gave the impression that the products were sold in Europe without restriction.

In setting the amount of the penalty, the Court took into account the nature, scope and duration of the non‑compliance and the absence of proven sales in the relevant territories. The main act of non-compliance, namely the disclaimer‑free presence of the product on the defendants’ website for 91 days, justified a daily penalty of €500. A lower daily penalty of €100 per day was applied to the B2B marketplace listing, reflecting the presence of a disclaimer. The Court also imposed a recurring daily penalty for any future non‑compliance and ordered the defendants to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings, with the value of the enforcement proceedings set at 10% of the value of the proceedings for provisional measures.

New episodes: You, Me and the UPC: Case by case

Episode 59: Munich Local Division confirms that FRAND security cannot be relied on to resist security for costs

Episode 60: Düsseldorf Local Division rejects request for preliminary injunction amid doubts over infringement and urgency