Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Asustek Computer Inc., UPC CFI Local Division Lisbon, 6 May 2026, Case nos. UPC_CFI_757/2024 & UPC_CFI_539/2025
Earlier, Ericsson was denied a preliminary injunction due to lack of urgency, but the Local Division Lisbon had indicated that it was of the opinion that Asustek indeed infringed Ericsson’s patent EP 2 819 131.
Subsequently, Ericsson filed an action on the merits. The Court found Ericsson’s Patent valid and infringed.
The Court rejected the argument that there is no interest for a revocation action if the patent has meanwhile expired. Where an infringement action is filed in respect of acts occurring prior to the expiry of the patent and the possibility of claiming retroactive damages is at issue, the defendant has a legal interest in filing a counterclaim to revoke that patent, even if it has already expired.
Regarding subdomains, The Court rejected the argument that Asustek would not be responsible for the subdomains of which it is only the holder. The holder of a sub-domain is responsible for the content of the subdomain as much as for the content of the main domain, either for offering or placing on the market the infringed products.
A copy of the Decision can be read here.
