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.

Regarding this ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, on the one hand, Perplexity AI’s legal arguments against the lower court’s injunction were substantively reasonable and not baseless; on the other hand, the panel determined that temporarily allowing the “Comet” AI shopping bot to continue operating on Amazon would not cause irreparable immediate harm to Amazon. Based on this, the court decided to suspend enforcement of the lower court’s preliminary injunction and maintain the current operational status until the appellate court issues a final ruling on the injunction’s legality.

an abuse of process.The UPC Court of Appeal upheld the previous revocation decision by the Düsseldorf Regional Court. The Court of Appeal noted that in its application for evidence preservation filed on September 2, 2025, Ecovacs intentionally omitted key information—namely, that the respondent, Roborock, was itself selling the products in question directly to German consumers through its Amazon store. The court held that this information was sufficient to influence the trial court’s judgment in deciding whether to issue an ex parte inspection order.

This case stems from VoiceAge’s claim that it holds multiple standard-essential patents related to the EVS (Enhanced Voice Services) standard, alleging that HMD has implemented the relevant technology in its mobile phone products without a license. The parties have engaged in multiple rounds of litigation in Germany since 2019, with the core dispute centered on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing negotiations—specifically, whether HMD is a bona fide licensee, whether it has a genuine intention to accept a license, and the scope of the SEP holder’s licensing obligations.