Context: Ericsson’s cellular standard-essential patent (SEP) enforcement against China-based Transsion is a global campaign, spanning a number of countries, among them Morocco (December 19, 2025 ip fray article).
What’s new: Moroccan media outlet Médias24 reported yesterday (in French) that the Casablanca Trade Court has enjoined Transsion subsidiaries Tecno Mobile Limited and Itel Mobility Limited from selling 4G and 5G smartphones in the North African country due to a violation of some Ericsson patents.
Direct impact:
- Enforcement may not begin immediately due to Transsion’s expected appeal.
- Approximately 2.5% of Transsion’s global sales are generated in Morocco.
- Ericsson offered arbitration a long time ago and appears confident that the royalties it is seeking a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND).
Wider ramifications: By international standards, the speed of this court is remarkable. Apparently it took a little over six months from filing to injunction. That fact could attract many more cases to that country, thanks to Ericsson’s pioneering efforts.
There were originally three parties in the case: Transsion (the Chinese parent company), Tecno, and Itel. This is what happened:
- The Chinese parent company was effectively dismissed from the case.
- Tecno was enjoined over four patents and Itel over two of them.
These are the patents (the Itel injunction is limited to the first two while the Tecno injunction covers all four):
- MA31168 (“Method and device for improved state reports”)
- MA31948 (“Methods and tools of communication through a radio channel”)
- MA46985 (“Cell reselection measurement window in a new radio”)
- MA47656 (“Design of quasi-cyclic ldpc shift values”)
The hearing was held in open court on Monday, July 6, 2026. The decision came down in the form of a bench ruling, and a written judgment will still take time (maybe about a month).
There are slight differences in the remedial orders between the Tecno and Itel cases. Tecno faces a per diem penalty of 10K Moroccan dirham (MAD), which is approximately $1,070, while Itel’s penalty is ten times as high. Also, while the injunction in the Tecno case was worded rather generally, the one in the Itel case specifically orders a withdrawal from the market and the destruction of infringing goods.
The Monday hearing was the third one on the merits in that case, but the first two led to a deadline extension for Transsion’s answer to the complaint. This week, the court felt that enough was enough and denied a request for a further extension. Instead, it adjudicated the matter.