On 12 May 2026, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales handed down its judgment in the Standard Essential Patent (SEP) FRAND licensing dispute between Nokia and Acer and ASUS, permanently staying the FRAND proceedings brought by Acer and ASUS in the UK; the trial originally scheduled for June to July 2026 has been cancelled.

This case centres on Ericsson’s European patent EP 2819131 B1, which relates to a design for an inductor coil with a symmetrical double-loop structure. The core of the invention lies in the arrangement of two loops of identical size and shape with opposing currents, causing the electromagnetic field components to cancel each other out at a certain distance, thereby reducing unnecessary electromagnetic coupling on the chip. Ericsson argued that the AX201 and AX211 modules used by ASUS in its products fell within the scope of protection of claim 1 of the patent in question, constituting direct infringement.

This case forms part of a series of patent disputes between Dyson and ZMI, concerning the patent EP3119235 (hand-held hair styling appliance). Previously, in response to an application for interim measures initiated by Dyson, the Hamburg Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction on 14 August 2025, finding that ZMI’s older product infringed the patent; this injunction became the first preliminary injunction issued by the UPC to cover Spain.

On 8 May 2026, the 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, issued a ruling in the dispute between Nokia and Asus concerning standard-essential patents for the AVC/H.264 standard: It dismissed Asus’s application to set aside the interim injunction, upheld the previous interim injunction against Asus, and ruled to exclude the relevant opinion in an expert report which concluded that the patent in question was not standard-essential and consequently denied that Asus had infringed the patent; it further ordered a new expert to be appointed to provide a supplementary report on this issue.

On 7 May 2026, the ITC issued a partial final ruling in the Section 337 case brought by Infineon against the Chinese gallium nitride semiconductor firm Innoscience, finding that Innoscience had infringed Infineon’s US Patent No. 9,899,481. Consequently, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order prohibiting the importation of Innoscience’s infringing products into the United States.

This litigation dates back to November 2025, when the RTL Group initiated revocation proceedings against Huawei’s other MPEG DASH patent EP2945339 (“Method and apparatus for regulating streaming data transmission”) at the UPC Central Court in Paris, and applied for access to the case files of the Nokia v. Amazon case to assess its own risks.

This transfer involves a total of 12 granted US patents and their corresponding European family patents, primarily covering Hikvision’s core surveillance camera and related technology fields, including patents in areas such as mobile imaging, video analytics, robotic computer vision, memory optimisation, and streaming media bandwidth management.

The case stems from a judgment delivered by Judge Mello of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales on 18 December 2025. The judge granted Acer and Asus a provisional licence declaration covering H.264/AVC and H.265/HEVC video coding patents, and dismissed Nokia’s jurisdictional objection.

This ruling stems from a patent infringement dispute previously initiated by both parties in Europe. In 2025, Nokia filed two separate actions before the UPC concerning the relevant patents, under case numbers UPC_CFI_661/2025 and UPC_CFI_662/2025, relating to European Patents EP 3 799 333 and EP 4 090 075. These cases are currently pending.

On 16 April 2026, the Mannheim Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) delivered its judgment in the patent infringement case brought by Corning Incorporated against four TCL-affiliated companies (Case No. UPC_CFI_819/2024): The Court found that the glass substrates used in television products sold on the German market by three TCL entities in Germany fell within the scope of protection of Corning’s European patent EP 3 296 274, thereby constituting patent infringement. It upheld Corning’s key claims for an injunction, disclosure of information, product recall, channel clearance and destruction of stock, whilst dismissing TCL’s counterclaim for patent invalidity. Furthermore, the court found that TCL’s Belgian holding company did not infringe the patent and dismissed all of Corning’s claims against that entity.