This case centers on a portfolio of SEPs related to video codecs held by both parties. Acer argues that the royalty rates and terms proposed by Nokia deviate from comparable industry transactions and violate FRAND obligations, requesting the court to conduct a substantive review. Nokia, however, invokes the arbitration clause in the confidentiality agreement previously signed by both parties, asserting that the dispute should be excluded from court jurisdiction.

The Munich Regional Court, First Instance, found that OPPO and its affiliate OnePlus infringed on ISC’s EP2802185 patent (“Method and Apparatus for Adding Service Cells in a Wireless Communication System”), which covers multi-mode dual-connectivity technology and qualifies as a 5G standard essential patent. Based on this finding, the court issued an injunction prohibiting the sale of the infringing devices in the German market.

The central issue in this case was whether an internet service provider constitutes “contributory infringement” if it fails to take effective measures, such as terminating service, after becoming aware that its users are committing copyright infringement through its network. Major music rights holders, including Sony Music, argued that after receiving over 160,000 infringement notices, Cox merely issued warnings and implemented temporary suspensions without actually terminating the accounts of numerous repeat infringers. They contended that Cox should therefore bear liability for contributory infringement and sought a record $1 billion in damages. The jury and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted this view, holding Cox liable.

This case marks Transsion’s first public filing of a patent infringement lawsuit against Ericsson as the plaintiff. Previously, since November 2025, Ericsson has launched multiple rounds of global Standard Essential Patent (SEP) enforcement actions against Transsion, involving Brazil, India, Nigeria, multiple divisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), Indonesia, Colombia, Morocco, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, and South Africa.

Recently, Longhorn Automotive Group LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit (Case No. 2:26-cv-00235) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that entities under the Volvo Group—including Volvo Group North America, Mack Trucks, Nova Bus, and Prevost Car—have infringed upon multiple patents in their commercial truck and bus products.

The patent at issue in this case is titled “Highly Efficient Scalable Bitstream Adaptation System and Method.” The court consolidated the cases for joint hearing based on relevant legal determinations made previously.

The ruling drew heavily on precedent established by the same court in the IP Bridge v. BYD case. The court noted that the patent at issue in this case belongs to the same patent family as the one in the BYD case, and that in the BYD case, the court had previously confirmed the patent’s validity and standard-essential nature. Based on considerations of judicial consistency and efficiency, this precedent holds significant reference value for the present case.

The case originated in April 2025, when Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against Vivo at the UPC Paris Regional Division based on two European patents (EP 3 407 524, EP 3 852 468) at the UPC Paris Regional Division, alleging infringement of its 4G+-related standard-essential patents. Sun Patent Trust requested the court to confirm that its proposed licensing terms complied with the “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) principle and sought an injunction in the event the defendant refused to accept the terms.

The key factor leading to the reversal of the legal battle lies in the contest over the validity of the patents. In June 2023, CSOT filed a multi-party reexamination (IPR) proceeding with the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) regarding two patents asserted by Samsung, seeking to challenge their validity. However, the PTAB issued a final written decision upholding the validity of those two patents, which provided CSOT with a stronger foundation for patent validity in filing its counterclaim.

Recently, on March 18, the Mannheim Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) held an oral hearing in the ZTE v. Samsung case. During the hearing, Presiding Judge Peter Tochtermann presented the framework for the UPC’s procedure for determining FRAND rates.