UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 495/2025

4. Juni 2025·EP2609590 +1 more · APPARATUS FOR DECODING A SIGNAL COMPRISING TRANSIENTS USING A COMBINING UNIT AND A MIXER

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Beklagte
Vertreter
  • Oliver Bäcker
Division
Hamburg LD
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Computer technology · Telecommunications
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
19. Dez. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
24. Aug. 2026
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Hamburg LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Sabine KlepschGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Stefan SchillingGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Peter AgergaardGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Christoph NorrenbrockGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (14 Verfahren)·HMD Global Oy (14 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-08-24
    InfringementÖffentlich

    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 12 (indirect) of Fraunhofer's SEP EP 2 609 590, as maintained in the amended form of Auxiliary Request 1, 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. On the linked counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1131/2025), the patent was upheld in the Auxiliary Request 1 form and Defendant's exceeding revocation counterclaim was rejected.

    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: patent maintained as amended (Auxiliary Request 1)
  • 2026-06-01
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The judge-rapporteur summarized an interim conference held on 1 June 2026 covering both main infringement proceedings and counterclaims for revocation in UPC_CFI_494/2025 and UPC_CFI_495/2025. The order sets case values, admits and denies various submissions, admits Auxiliary Request III in UPC_CFI_495/2025, and dismisses the Defendant's request for a further opportunity to respond to the Claimant's FRAND submission.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (9)
    • claim construction of complex-valued upmix parameters (EP2380167)
    • validity and inventive step over prior art HLCC 7, 9, 10 (EP2380167)
    • infringement via MPS/USAC standard separate interpolation feature (EP2380167)
    • claim construction of 'input signal' and gradual separation (EP2609590)
    • priority validity over HLCC 4 disclosure (EP2609590)
    • validity challenges including HLCC 7 as prior art (EP2609590)
    • exhaustion defence based on AAC Patent License Agreement between Via and Google
    • FRAND defence including bilateral licence agreement and pool offer
    • admissibility of late-filed submissions under R. 36 RoP
  • 2025-12-19
    Infringement 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
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Anordnung2026-09-11Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-09-11Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-09-07Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-09-07Nicht öffentlich
Document Claimant2026-09-07Nicht öffentlich
Anordnung2026-09-04Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-09-04Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-09-04Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-08-31Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-08-31Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • 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
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • 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 offer
  • Claimant'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)
  • Claimant's claims were (partially) time-barred: under Art. 72 UPCA for the period before 4 June 2020, and under the shorter three-year German limitation period (§§ 195, 199 BGB, via Art. 72, 24(2)-(3) UPCA) for the period before 1 January 2022.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 72, 24(2)-(3) UPCA; §§ 195, 199 BGB – rejected because settlement negotiations suspended the limitation period under § 203 BGB