Ericsson’s EP4277422, read from the defense side.
EP4277422 is the LTE random-access scrambling patent behind Ericsson's UPC campaign. Asserted as EP4277422B1 against smartphones and payment terminals at Mannheim, this is the implementer-side view: where to push back and what evidence to gather.
Six defense routes across claim construction, standard optionality, prosecution estoppel, legal status and prior art — graded by confidence and strength, with the patent owner’s likely counterargument.
The invalidity lead: a lack-of-inventive-step theory built on pre-priority 3GPP materials — the specific references are named in the report.
An element-by-element non-admission claim chart of independent claims 1 and 10 against TS 36.211 / TS 36.321 v8.3.0 and context from TS 36.331, with the claim construction applied.
Demonstration sample. The report is 100% AI-generated and illustrative only; it may contain errors, omissions or alternative interpretations. It is not legal advice, not a legal opinion and not a technical expert opinion, and no reliance should be placed on it for litigation, licensing, investment, product, compliance or other decisions. Patent and case facts on this page are drawn from public sources (EPO register, UPC records) as of July 10, 2026.
Get the defense report
The full 19-page SEP defense report lands in your inbox. Read by in-house IP teams and outside counsel.
The patent at a glance
- Patent
- EP4277422B1 on Espacenet
- Title
- Uplink scrambling during random access
- Applicant
- ERICSSON TELEFON AB L M
- Earliest priority
- August 8, 2007
- Standard analyzed
- TS 36.211 v8.3.0, with context from TS 36.321 and TS 36.331
- Legal status
- Active validations include ES and GB; lapsed post-grant in CH, CZ, GR, HR, IS, NO, PL and SK. No UPC opt-out; no EPO opposition filed. Status per the EPO register, checked July 10, 2026.
- Report posture
- Implementer-focused defense: non-admission, non-essentiality and invalidity read-out.
Asserted at the UPC
Where and against whom the patent is asserted — so an implementer can gauge commercial assertion risk, not just legal-status geography. All facts per public UPC records.
- Nov 2025 → Jul 2026
- UPC Mannheim Local Division (UPC-CFI-0001570/2025) — infringement action against Transsion group entities and distributor Egenta SRO, asserting EP4277422B1 alongside EP3965354B1 in a smartphone SEP campaign. A global settlement was announced on July 8, 2026, with pending litigation to be withdrawn.
- Feb 2026 → pending
- UPC Mannheim Local Division (UPC-CFI-0000661/2026) — EP4277422B1 asserted against Adyen, EC Cash Direkt and Verifone group entities in a payment-terminal / IoT SEP action, pending as of July 9th, 2026.
- What it signals
- The same patent has now been run against smartphones and payment terminals within four months — assertion reach beyond handsets is demonstrated, not hypothetical. Any LTE-connected product category is in scope.
One defense route, published in full
Per the EPO register, EP4277422B1 has lapsed post-grant in eight European jurisdictions — Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland. Products sold, imported or operated in those countries fall outside the infringement claim and the damages base; the enforceable scope is limited to the Unitary Patent states and the remaining validated national states such as Spain and the UK.
That is the legal-status defense — graded MEDIUM in the report, and deliberately the one we publish openly: it is verifiable against the public register. The three HIGH-graded routes stay in the report:
A claim-construction attack on limitations 1[e]/1[h]: LTE provides two mutually exclusive contention-resolution paths, and claim 1 requires both at once.
A prosecution-estoppel defense on the "terminal-specific" scrambling limitations (1[f], 1[i], 10[f], 10[i]), read from the applicant’s own examination amendments.
An optionality defense on limitation 10[e]: the claimed core-network identifier is conditional in the standard, not mandatory.
The arguments themselves, the standard citations behind them and the patent owner’s likely counters are in the report — along with the invalidity lead and its named pre-priority references.
Inside the 19 pages
- Executive summary · pp. 3–4
- Patent, posture, enforcement and commercial relevance, plus the key-findings table for implementers.
- Defense map · p. 5
- The fast route through the report: six defense routes ranked by confidence, each pointing to its evidence and next action.
- Non-essentiality arguments · pp. 6–8
- Six defense-side positions — two claim-construction attacks, an optionality defense, two prosecution-estoppel defense arguments and the legal-status defense — each with the patent owner’s likely counterargument and a net assessment.
- Invalidity / prior art · p. 9
- A lack-of-inventive-step theory built on pre-priority 3GPP materials, with the specific references and what each one discloses.
- Annex A · pp. 10–19
- Element-by-element non-admission baseline claim chart of independent claims 1 and 10 against TS 36.211 / TS 36.321 v8.3.0, with the claim construction applied and disputed limitations flagged.
Frequently asked questions
What is EP4277422?
EP4277422B1, "Uplink scrambling during random access", is a European patent owned by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) with an earliest priority date of August 8, 2007. EP4277422 claims a random access procedure in LTE user terminals and is typically mapped to 3GPP TS 36.211, TS 36.321 and 36.331. Per the EPO register it remains active in validated states including Spain and the United Kingdom, while national protection has lapsed in eight other European jurisdictions.
Where is EP4277422 being enforced?
Public UPC records show two infringement actions at the Mannheim Local Division: one filed in November 2025 against Transsion group entities and a distributor (resolved by a global settlement announced July 8, 2026), and one filed in February 2026 against Adyen, EC Cash Direkt and Verifone group entities — a payment-terminal action demonstrating the patent’s assertion reach beyond smartphones.
Is this report a legal opinion?
No. It is a demonstration sample of the ClaimsEvidence defense read-out, 100% AI-generated and illustrative only. It is not legal advice, not a legal opinion and not a technical expert opinion, and no reliance should be placed on it for litigation, licensing, investment, product, compliance or other decisions.
What is in the full report, and how do I get it?
The 19-page PDF contains six graded defense routes (claim construction, standard optionality, prosecution estoppel, legal status, prior art), a lack-of-inventive-step invalidity lead naming the specific pre-priority 3GPP references, and an element-by-element non-admission claim chart of independent claims 1 and 10 against TS 36.211 / TS 36.321 v8.3.0. Enter your work email on this page — we review each request and send the report.