Context: Transsion recently escalated its broader global dispute with Ericsson by filing its first-ever public patent infringement action at the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Lisbon Local Division (LD), asserting EP4123910 (“Information indication method and related product”) against several Ericsson entities (March 26, 2026 ip fray article). The Lisbon case emerged against the backdrop of Ericsson’s ongoing multi-jurisdictional 4G and 5G standard-essential patent (SEP) enforcement campaign against the Chinese smartphone maker, spanning the UPC, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Morocco, South Africa, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Colombia, and the Philippines (January 30, 2026 ip fray article).
What’s new: An Ericsson entity that is not among the defendants in the Lisbon infringement action has now filed a standalone revocation action at the Paris seat of the Central Division (CD) against Transsion’s EP’910 patent. The move creates parallel UPC proceedings concerning the same patent, with infringement issues proceeding in the Lisbon LD while validity is now separately challenged before the CD.
Direct impact: The procedural structure is notable because the Ericsson companies sued in Lisbon could not themselves bring an independent revocation action, having instead been limited procedurally to filing a revocation counterclaim within the infringement case. By using a different corporate entity to initiate the revocation action in Paris, Ericsson appears to be taking advantage of the UPC’s relatively permissive approach toward group-company standing in revocation proceedings. The UPC has so far generally allowed revocation actions by entities belonging to the same corporate group as infringement defendants, making any preliminary objection by Transsion on standing or admissibility grounds relatively unlikely to succeed.
Wider ramifications: The filing further highlights the increasingly strategic interaction between the LD and CD in SEP litigation. Statistically, revocation actions have seen comparatively greater success before the CD than validity challenges raised through counterclaims in LDs. One reason is structural: parties seeking revocation in the CD can often advocate broader claim constructions in support of invalidity arguments, while defendants resisting infringement allegations in LDs frequently advance narrower constructions to avoid infringement findings. Panel composition, procedural dynamics, and case allocation may also influence perceptions regarding where patent validity challenges are more likely to succeed.
Given the broader SEP context and the ongoing global licensing conflict between the parties, the procedural split could eventually intersect with fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND)-related positioning and broader portfolio negotiations, even if no such issues are presently visible from the public filings.
Court and counsel
The revocation action was filed before the CD Paris.
Panel: Judge Vincenzo Carni and Judge Tatyana Zhilova.
Counsel for Ericsson Technology Licensing AB: Taylor Wessing’s Prof. Wim Maas.