Case Law post CJEU ruling Huawei v ZTE
gb jp cn

Back to main 4iP Council site

Sisvel International S.A. vs ZTE Italy S.r.l. and Europhoto Trading S.r.l.

4 March 2016 - Case No. 2695/2016 R.G.

http://caselaw.4ipcouncil.com/italian-court-decisions/ip-court-turin/sisvel-international-s-vs-zte-italy-srl-and-europhoto-trading-srl

A. Facts

Sisvel International S.A. filed a complaint on 1 February 2016 against the first instance decision,Specialized IP Court of Turin, 4 March 2016 – Sisvel International S.A. vs ZTE Italy S.r.l. and Europhoto Trading S.r.l. Pg 4, para 1 claiming that: i) clause 12 of the NDA did not affect the procedural right of action of Sisvel International; [2402] ii) the NDA in any case was terminated by the second letter sent by Sisvel dated 13 October 2014, [2403] and that iii) the principles established by the CJEU in Huawei v ZTE case [Huawei] were met in the negotiation undertaken by Sisvel with the parent company ZTE Corporation. [2403]

ZTE Italy contested the opposing complaint, reiterating the arguments already set out in the first instance proceedings. [2403]

Although it was notified of Sisvel's complaint, Europhoto Trading s.r.l. did not appear in the interlocutory proceedings at the second instance. [2403]
 

B. Court’s reasoning

In the second Instance, the Specialized IP Court of Turin confirmed the first instance decision on 4 March 2016. [2404] The Court found once again that Sisvel had not validly terminated the NDA. [2405] Therefore, it was prevented from filing an action against ZTE based on the “Sisvel Wireless Patents” portfolio.

  • [2401] Specialized IP Court of Turin, 4 March 2016 – Sisvel International S.A. vs ZTE Italy S.r.l. and Europhoto Trading S.r.l. Pg 4, para 1
  • [2402] Ibid, pg 5, para 1
  • [2403] Ibid
  • [2404] Ibid, pg 6, para 2.2
  • [2405] Ibid, pg 8, para 2.2