Context: In November 2025, Ericsson launched a global enforcement campaign against China’s Transsion, the world’s fourth-largest smartphone maker, over 4G and 5G-related standard-essential patents (SEPs). It sued the Chinese supplier in Brazil, India, Nigeria, and three venues in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) (November 14, 2025 ip fray article). Then, in a second wave in December 2025, Ericsson also sued Transsion in Indonesia, Colombia, and Morocco (December 19, 2025 ip fray article). The campaign has so far involved the first publicly known patent infringement suit filed in Nigeria, and the first time a major SEP owner such as Ericsson has filed a publicly known SEP infringement suit in Morocco.
What’s new: Ericsson has now filed a third wave of actions against Transsion, this time in Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, South Africa, and another in Brazil.
Direct impact: The new suits mark the first time that major SEP infringement lawsuits have been filed in South Africa, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines (and possibly patent infringements of any kind). Transsion owns nearly 40% of the smartphone market in the Philippines, 18% in Vietnam, 16% in Thailand, and a major share of the South African market.
Wider ramifications: The geographic escalation of this suit suggests Transsion is reluctant to come to the negotiation table. The companies have been in licensing discussions since August 2017, but, as noted last month by Ericsson’s Vice President, Patent Assertion and Enforcement, Robert Earle, Transsion has not accepted Ericsson’s arbitration offer and continues to “benefit” from the SEP owner’s patented technology without a license.
So far, this is where Ericsson is suing Transsion and the counsel it has sought in each jurisdiction. The new additions are underlined:
| Jurisdiction | Court | Representative | |
| November 2025 | Brazil | The 1st Business Court of Rio de Janeiro State Court | Licks Attorneys |
| November 2025 | India | Delhi High Court | Singh & Singh |
| November 2025 | Nigeria | Federal High Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division | Jackson, Etti, & Edu |
| November 2025 | UPC | The Hague LD | Taylor Wessing |
| November 2025 | UPC | Mannheim LD | Kather Augenstein |
| November 2025 | UPC | Paris Central Division (CD)) | Taylor Wessing |
| December 2025 | Indonesia | Judicial Delegature of the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC); Civil Circuit Courts of Bogota | OlarteMoure |
| December 2025 | Colombia | The Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court | Rouse |
| December 2025 | Morocco | The Tribunal of Commerce of First Instance in Casablanca. | SabaIP |
| January 2026 | Brazil | Business Court of the Rio de Janeiro State Court | Licks Attorneys |
| January 2026 | The Philippines | Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines in Taguig City | Rouse |
| January 2026 | South Africa | Court of the Commissioner of Patents in Pretoria | Smit & Van Wyk and Taylor Wessing |
| January 2026 | Thailand | Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (the IP & IT Court) in Bangkok | Tilleke & Gibbins |
| January 2026 | Vietnam | Regional People’s Court No. 1 in Ho Chi Minh City and Regional People’s Court No. 2 in Hanoi | Rouse |
Other key jurisdictions where Transsion has a major share of the smartphone market include Algeria, Egypt, Kenya, and the general Southeast Asian region.
Ericsson’s enforcement strategy, which now involves first-time SEP lawsuits in six different jurisdictions, is being watched with interest by its peers in the SEP industry. The company has been the first to test out several jurisdictions, including its dispute against TCL in Brazil in 2012, its action against Mercury Electronics in India in 2013, and its suit against Apple in Colombia in 2022. All three disputes were eventually settled.
In a conference last week, Nokia’s Head of Global Litigation and Disputes, Clemens Heusch, noted the importance of emerging jurisdictions and their particularly central role in this case. The UPC is not always the key, and in some cases, it “would not do the job alone”, he said. While he also noted the risks that come with filing in new jurisdictions, he said, “someone always has to be the first to try”, adding:
“If a judge has never seen an SEP and an implementer argues that if they grant an injunction, then no one else will come back to their market, that can be scary for them. So you need to strike a balance when convincing the judge why they should grant injunctions.”