On 6 May 2026, the Lisbon Regional Division of the UPC delivered its judgment in the patent infringement and counterclaim for invalidity case brought by Ericsson against AsusTek: the AX201 and AX211 modules integrated into Asus’s products fall within the scope of protection of Ericsson’s European patent EP 2819131 B1 and constitute patent infringement; The court upheld Ericsson’s key claims for damages and disclosure of information, whilst dismissing Asus’s counterclaim for patent invalidity.
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.
Regarding patent validity, the court found that the broad description of the “axis of symmetry” in the original granted text (feature 1.2) raised an issue of added matter; however, this defect had been overcome by Ericsson’s first auxiliary request (AR1) submitted during the proceedings. As for the challenge regarding added matter concerning “terminals connected to the second ring” (feature 1.5), the court dismissed it based on the clear illustrations in the patent drawings. The court also rejected other challenges regarding novelty and inventive step, ultimately dismissing ASUS’s counterclaim for invalidity and upholding the patent’s validity on the basis of AR1.
During the infringement comparison, the court determined, point by point, that the accused module fell within each of the technical features of claim 1 of the patent in question.
Regarding the “substantial symmetry” feature, ASUS argued that, from a physical layout perspective, current flow was asymmetrical and could not fully cancel out the magnetic field. The court clarified that the term “symmetry” in the claim is a purely geometric concept, referring to the inductor as a geometric object that can be mapped onto itself along an axis of symmetry; given that the two rings of the module in question are identical in size and shape, they possess substantial symmetry with respect to both the horizontal and vertical axes, thereby satisfying this feature.
Regarding the “first ring and second ring” feature, ASUS argued that the central intersection area rendered the rings incomplete. The court held that the module clearly possessed a first ring and a second ring, and that current flowed in a complete circuit; otherwise, it would be impossible for current to flow from one end to the other, and therefore this feature was satisfied.
Regarding the feature of “opposite current directions”, the court found that the current in the first ring of the module flowed in a counter-clockwise direction, whilst that in the second ring flowed in a clockwise direction; as these directions were opposite, the components of the electromagnetic field were directed in opposite directions and thus cancelled each other out at a certain distance. Regarding the feature of “terminals connected to the second loop”, the court determined, based on the patent drawings, that all drawings showing connections depicted the terminals connected to the second loop; this was a clear and unambiguous illustration, and the accused module also satisfied this feature.
Furthermore, ASUS submitted a statement from expert Dr Dobkin, attempting to distinguish the accused module from the patented technology based on the principles of electromagnetic coupling.
The court noted that whilst the statement explained the interaction mechanism between the loops, it did not provide any calculations or simulation results; consequently, it was impossible to determine on this basis whether there was a substantive difference between the accused module and the patented technology, and the statement was therefore not accepted.On this basis, the court ultimately upheld Ericsson’s core claims and found that ASUS had infringed the patent. The specific judgment is as follows:Firstly, ASUS must pay damages to Ericsson for the infringement; the specific amount will be determined in subsequent separate proceedings;Secondly, within 10 weeks of the judgment being served, ASUS must submit to Ericsson a written declaration signed by an independent auditor, accompanied by appropriate documentation, fully disclosing the sales of the AX201 module from the second quarter of 2019 until 15 February 2025, and from the third quarter of 2021 to 15 February 2025 for the AX211 module, including sales volumes, purchase costs, sales prices and net profit, together with relevant invoices.
Thirdly, should ASUS fail to comply with the aforementioned disclosure order, it will face a fixed fine of up to €50,000, plus a daily penalty of €2,500.
Attached: Judgment
Scan the QR code to access the full text of the judgment
