UPC CFI 494/2025
4. Juni 2025·EP2380167 +1 more · APPARATUS, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR UPMIXING A DOWNMIX AUDIO SIGNAL
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.Universität / Forschung
Vertreter- Volkmar Henke-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Division
- Hamburg LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringComputer technology · Telecommunications
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 19. Dez. 2025
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 24. Aug. 2026
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Hamburg LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Sabine Klepsch | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Stefan Schilling | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Peter Agergaard | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Christoph Norrenbrock | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (14 Verfahren)·HMD Global Oy (14 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Hamburg LD·2025
- 2026-08-24InfringementÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hamburg Local Division held that HMD Global Oy's Android-9-and-later smartphones and tablets (Nokia/HMD brands) infringe claim 1 (direct) and claim 14 (indirect) of Fraunhofer's SEP EP 2 380 167, rejecting HMD's FRAND and exhaustion defences because its insistence on a bilateral rather than pool licence, without placing a security, did not show genuine willingness to take a licence. The Court ordered a cease-and-desist injunction, recall and destruction of infringing products, an information/accounting order, an interim damages award of EUR 219,000 and a declaration of full liability for further damages. Defendant's counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 2 380 167 in its entirety (companion docket UPC_CFI_1128/2025) was rejected and the patent upheld as granted, unamended.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
- FRAND defence to injunction under Art. 101/102 TFEU (SEP licensing)
- Pool licence vs. bilateral licence: when an implementer may insist on bilateral terms, and how that bears on willingness to license
- Patent exhaustion, Art. 29 UPCA
- Limitation/time-bar under Art. 72 UPCA and §§ 195, 199, 203 BGB (suspension of limitation during settlement negotiations)
- Temporal application of the UPCA to infringing acts spanning its 1 June 2023 entry into force
- Counterclaim for revocation rejected in its entirety; patent upheld as granted (unamended)
- 2025-12-19Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Hamburg Local Division procedural order on HMD Global's request for production of licence agreements (R. 190 RoP) in Fraunhofer's SEP infringement action. The Court granted partial disclosure: HMD's request regarding the AAC Patent License Agreement with a named third party (whose identity is redacted) was granted subject to a confidentiality declaration, as Fraunhofer had consented. The request regarding a second bilateral agreement was not yet ripe for determination.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Production of licence agreements (R. 190 RoP)
- FRAND / SEP (AAC standard)
- Antitrust transparency obligation
- Exhaustion of rights defence
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Anordnung | 2026-09-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-09-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2026-09-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-09-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-09-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-08-26 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-08-26 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Document Claimant | 2026-08-26 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Veröffentlichung der Anordnung | 2026-08-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2026-08-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
For competition-law reasons a SEP holder is only required to indicate one FRAND-compliant licensing route to the implementer (here, the Via AAC pool licence); it need not also offer a bilateral licence, absent circumstances such as the implementer already having advanced bilateral deals with a significant number of other pool contributors or genuinely seeking a multi-standard/cross-licence.
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: FRAND defence, Art. 101/102 TFEU (concurring with LD Munich, decision of 18 December 2024, UPC_CFI_9/2023, Huawei v Netgear, p. 136)Claimant's claims for the period since 6 August 2018 (release of Android 9) were not time-barred: settlement negotiations between the parties (6 December 2019 to 26 January 2023) suspended the running of the German three-year limitation period under § 203 BGB, and Art. 72 UPCA's five-year limit did not otherwise bar the claims.
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 72 UPCA; §§ 195, 199, 203 BGB
Defendant's insistence on a bilateral licence instead of the offered Via pool licence, and its stated reasons for rejecting Claimant's offers, showed it was a willing licensee entitled to a FRAND defence against an injunction.
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: FRAND defence, Art. 101/102 TFEU – Defendant failed to present comprehensible reasons for opting for bilateral licensing, failed to conclude bilateral agreements with other SEP pool licensors within a reasonable time, and refrained from placing a security, notwithstanding an initial FRAND pool offerClaimant's patent rights were exhausted because of an existing (disputed) licence agreement, since HMD's devices run on an operating system that already implements the licensed AAC codec.
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 29 UPCA (exhaustion)Defendant sought revocation of EP 2 380 167 in its entirety, in the alternative on the basis of Auxiliary Requests I-IV filed by Claimant.
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Revocation counterclaim; rejected in its entirety, patent upheld as granted