🇪🇺 UPC

UPC_CFI_301/2025

Court

Paris Local Division

Type of action

infringement

Patent

EP2345029

Method, computer program and device for decoding a digital audio signal

Language

Claimant / applicant

Orange SA

Defendant / respondent

HMD Global Oy

Track this case

Get an email when a new order or decision is published in UPC_CFI_301/2025.

Decisions and documents (2)

2026-08-19order on merits
Claimant:
Orange SA
Defendant:
HMD Global Oy
1-The Court agreed to declare the Defendant's request permissible, i.e. to decide upon the Coun- terclaim for revocaƟon only if the patent is found infringed, thereby making the Counterclaim for revocaƟon subject to an intra-procedural condiƟon. This procedural approach is consistent with established case-law on condiƟonal Counterclaims for revocaƟon (cf. LD Munich, Decision issued on 11 March 2026, UPC_CFI_180/2025 and UPC_CFI_210/2025; LD Mannheim, Decision issued on 5 December 2025, UPC_CFI_414/2024; LD Munich, Decision issued on 13 January 2026, UPC_CFI_628/2024 and UPC_CFI_125/2025, and recently confirmed by the CoA, see decision UPC- CoA-40/2026, Emboline v AorƟcLab, 16 July 2026; HEADNOTES 1) “LimiƟng a counterclaim for rev- ocaƟon by making it condiƟonal upon a finding of infringement is permissible”.) Thus, the Court will examine the infringement maƩer prior to the validity maƩer in the present decision. (see §7 of the present decision) 2-The Court recalls that the burden of proving infringement rests on the Claimant of the main acƟon. It is therefore for the Claimant to establish that the accused products implement all fea- tures of the asserted claims, either by direct use or by indirect use of the invenƟon. In the present case, the Court considers that a soluƟon requiring the transmission of any addiƟonal data goes against the teaching of the patent and is not encompassed in the scope of the claim. The Claimant has not established that the claimed technical effect is achieved by the aƩacked embodiments; the demonstraƟon of the infringement proposed by the Claimant relies on addiƟonal correcƟve informaƟon that is inconsistent with the technical teaching of the Patent. Therefore, the Claimant fails to prove the alleged infringement. (see § 74 and 92-95 of the present decision)
2026-06-16procedural
Claimant:
Orange SA
Defendant:
HMD Global Oy
Infringement Action. Document: ORDER R 105.5 ORANGE v HMD signedCL.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183567

Weekly digest

A weekly email summarising new published decisions across European patent courts.