FRAND Cross-Licensing and Single-SEP Enforcement: Parallel UPC Proceedings Between Ericsson and Transsion

1. Introduction

In a recent order issued on 26 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_850/2026), the Lisbon Local Division rejected Ericsson’s application under Rules 360 and 361 RoP seeking to strike out Transsion’s requests for injunctive relief in relation to EP 4 123 910.

Ericsson argued that issues relating to a FRAND-compliant cross-licence are already pending before the Hague Local Division and that Transsion’s requests for an injunction therefore either had become “devoid of purpose” or were “manifestly bound to fail”. The Lisbon Local Division disagreed.

From a procedural perspective, the order concerns the application of Rules 360 and 361 RoP. Viewed in the broader context of the ongoing Ericsson–Transsion SEP dispute, however, the decision highlights a more interesting development: the same commercial dispute is currently progressing through two different procedural tracks within the UPC system.

2. Lisbon: A Single SEP and a Request for an Injunction

The Lisbon proceedings concern EP 4 123 910, a 5G standard-essential patent (SEP) asserted by Transsion.

Transsion seeks injunctive relief and related remedies. Ericsson, by contrast, sought to have those requests dismissed at an early stage. According to Ericsson, proceedings already pending before the Hague Local Division involve a FRAND-compliant cross-licence that would encompass the patent asserted in Lisbon. In Ericsson’s view, Transsion could not seek unconditional injunctive relief in one UPC division while FRAND issues relating to the same broader licensing relationship were already before another division.

The Lisbon Local Division was not persuaded.

The Court held that Rule 360 RoP applies where an action “has become devoid of purpose” due to events occurring after the action was filed. The Hague proceedings did not meet that requirement. Nor was Rule 361 RoP applicable, as Ericsson’s arguments depended on future developments and assumptions that would require a substantive assessment of facts, law and evidence.

As a result, the Court allowed Transsion’s requests for injunctive relief to remain in the case.

3. The Hague: Infringement Proceedings with a FRAND Dimension

The Lisbon order becomes particularly interesting when read together with several recent procedural orders issued by the Hague Local Division.

The Hague Local Division is currently dealing with three SEP infringement actions brought by Ericsson against Transsion (UPC_CFI_1568/2025, UPC_CFI_1791/2025 and UPC_CFI_1793/2025). These proceedings originated from a single Combined Statement of Claim covering three SEPs and were subsequently split after the Court concluded that the patents concerned different technical effects.

Formally, the Hague proceedings remain infringement actions. However, Ericsson’s Statement of Claim goes beyond infringement and damages. In addition to its infringement claims, Ericsson included what it describes as “FRAND Specific Claims” and a “FRAND Injunction Claim”.

Transsion has challenged the Court’s jurisdiction over those FRAND-related requests by way of Preliminary Objections, arguing that Article 32 UPCA does not confer jurisdiction for a standalone determination of FRAND licence terms or FRAND rates.

In its order of 13 May 2026, the Hague Local Division declined to decide that issue at the preliminary stage and referred it to the main proceedings. At the same time, the Court expressed the provisional view that it appears to have jurisdiction under Article 32(1)(a) UPCA to adjudicate the infringement actions and the FRAND Injunction Claim, including the relevant FRAND condition. The Court further observed that the requested FRAND determination may constitute a necessary step for granting the conditional injunction sought by Ericsson.

The Hague proceedings therefore remain infringement actions, but FRAND-related issues have already become an important part of the procedural landscape.

4. Two Parallel Tracks

Viewed together, the Lisbon and Hague proceedings illustrate how the broader commercial dispute between Ericsson and Transsion over SEP licensing and FRAND terms is unfolding through different procedural contexts within the UPC.

The Hague actions formally remain SEP infringement proceedings. However, the focus is increasingly shifting towards FRAND-related issues, including FRAND defences, licensing terms, comparable licences, valuation evidence and related disclosure disputes. By contrast, the question before the Lisbon Local Division was whether Transsion’s request for injunctive relief should be struck out at an early stage on the basis of the parallel FRAND-related proceedings pending in The Hague.

The Lisbon Local Division did not express any view on the merits of the parties’ FRAND positions. The order nevertheless suggests that the existence of parallel FRAND-related proceedings elsewhere within the UPC does not, by itself, render a SEP proprietor’s claim for injunctive relief devoid of purpose or manifestly lacking a legal foundation.

5. Conclusion

As SEP disputes increasingly combine infringement, FRAND and licensing issues, the interaction between different UPC proceedings is likely to become an important topic in future practice.

Where those two tracks ultimately converge may prove to be one of the most interesting questions arising from the Ericsson–Transsion litigation.