UPC CFI 9/2023
3. Juli 2023·EP3611989 SEP +1 more · METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING WIRELESS LOCAL AREA NETWORK INFORMATION
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 459771/2023
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Tobias J. Hessel-Clifford Chance Partnerschaft mbB
- Thomas Misgaiski-Clifford Chance Partnerschaft mbB
- Marie Gessat-Clifford Chance Partnerschaft mbB
- Lea Prehn-Clifford Chance Partnerschaft mbB
- Christian Harmsenmitwirkend-Bird & Bird LLP
- Matthias Meyermitwirkend-Bird & Bird LLP
- Jörg Wittingmitwirkend-Bird & Bird LLP
- Friedrich Emmerlingmitwirkend-BDPE
- Karl-Ulrich Braun-Dullaeusmitwirkend-BDPE
- Lan Bimitwirkend-BDPE
Beklagte- Netgear Inc.Unternehmen
- NETGEAR Deutschland GmbHUnternehmen
- Netgear International LimitedUnternehmen
Vertreter- Henning Gutheil-Freshfields
- Stephan Dorn-Freshfields
- Frank-Erich Hufnagel-Freshfields
- Caroline Horstmann-Freshfields
- Diana Baum-Freshfields
- Cletus von Pichlermitwirkend-Samson & Partner Patentanwälte mbB
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 3. Okt. 2023
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 18. Dez. 2024
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Matthias Zigann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Edger Brinkman | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Tobias Pichlmaier | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Huawei Group (62 Verfahren)·Netgear Group (20 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 16 weitere Verfahren
UPC CFI 791/2024·CC 20512/2024·UPC CFI 152/2024·UPC CoA 36/2024·UPC CoA 44/2024 und 11 weitere
9 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
UPC CoA 180/2026·UPC CFI 1271/2026·UPC CFI 3450/2026·UPC CFI 3451/2026·UPC CFI 3452/2026 und 4 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2024-12-18Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division issued a landmark 161-page judgment in Huawei v Netgear finding infringement of Huawei's SEP portfolio patents and granting injunction, recall and destruction orders against Netgear entities across Belgium, Germany, Italy, Finland, France and Sweden, alongside a declaration of liability for damages; counterclaims for revocation were partially successful but did not defeat infringement for all claims.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
- SEP/FRAND infringement
- exhaustion defence
- IEEE Bylaws FRAND obligation
- CJEU Huawei v ZTE criteria
- injunction proportionality Art. 63 UPCA
- counterclaim for revocation
- 2024-09-09
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division vacated its earlier order appointing a translation expert after the claimant confirmed that the parties agreed on the translation of the Chinese-language documents, rendering the expert appointment unnecessary.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Translation of Chinese-language priority documents
- Case management
- 2024-02-09Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division issued an order under Rule 322 RoP in the Huawei v. Netgear infringement proceedings, deciding that, although German remains the language of proceedings, the oral hearing shall be conducted in English, relying on Rules 1.1 and 14.2(c) RoP to ensure an efficient and fair hearing given the international nature of the case and the parties' agreement.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Rule 322 RoP: change of language of oral hearing
- Rule 14.2(c) RoP: language of oral hearing vs. language of proceedings
- Flexibility and efficiency in UPC proceedings (Rule 1.1 RoP)
- 2023-12-11Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division dismissed Netgear's Rule 333 RoP request to have the full panel review the judge-rapporteur's decision to deal with the preliminary objection in the main proceedings, holding that a Rule 20.2 notification cannot be appealed or subject to panel review, and that inadmissible Rule 333 requests are decided by the rapporteur alone.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Rule 333 RoP review by full panel
- Rule 20.2 RoP notification not appealable
- Preliminary objection in main proceedings
- 2023-12-11Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division granted Huawei's application under Rule 263 RoP to amend its infringement claim to add EP 3 678 321 as an additional patent in suit alongside EP 3 611 989, having originally sued only on the latter patent; the court addressed the admissibility of claim amendment after conclusion of a limitation procedure.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Amendment of claim / addition of further patent (Rule 263 RoP)
- Limitation procedure
- Admissibility of claim extension
- 2023-12-11Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division issued a provisional order under Rule 302.1 RoP considering possible severance of the newly added EP 3 678 321 claims from the main case following the grant of the claim amendment, inviting submissions from parties on whether the new patent should be heard separately.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Severance of added patent (Rule 302.1 RoP)
- Case management after claim amendment
- 2023-10-03Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order clarifying obligations to use CMS official workflows, including the Rule 262.2 workflow for confidentiality protection from third parties and the Rule 262A workflow for confidentiality between parties, in an infringement action by Huawei against Netgear.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- CMS workflows (Rule 4.2 RoP)
- Confidentiality (Rule 262.2, Rule 262A RoP)
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-08-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293-Receipt | 2025-08-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome | 2025-08-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-08-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293-Receipt | 2025-08-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome | 2025-08-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-08-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293-Receipt | 2025-08-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome | 2025-08-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293 | 2025-07-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
Huawei sued Netgear entities for infringement of its SEP portfolio across six UPC member states (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Finland, France, Sweden). The Munich Local Division issued a 161-page judgment finding infringement and granting injunction, recall, destruction and damages liability, while partially accepting a Qualcomm-modem exhaustion defence. The court held that Huawei satisfied its FRAND obligations by offering at least one compliant licensing path (bilateral or pool), and that Netgear's FRAND/competition law defence failed because Netgear had not made a concrete, timely counter-offer with adequate security as required by the Huawei v. ZTE framework.
Patent proprietor satisfies FRAND obligations by offering at least one licensing path (bilateral or pool license) that meets competition law requirements
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 102 TFEU; Huawei v. ZTE (CJEU)Hinweis: The court held that where the patent holder has made at least one still-acceptable offer (bilateral or pool), the infringement action cannot be dismissed on FRAND grounds even if one offer is disputed.
FRAND competition law defence is only available to an implementer who has made a concrete counter-offer without delay and provided adequate security
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 102 TFEU; Huawei v. ZTE paras. 66-67 (CJEU)Hinweis: The court held that a defendant can invoke the Huawei v. ZTE defence against injunction/recall/destruction only if it has itself made a concrete FRAND counter-offer without delay, provided adequate security, and given information on the extent of use.
Exhaustion defence applies only to Qualcomm-modem equipped products placed on market in EU during specified period
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: exhaustion doctrineHinweis: The court accepted a partial exhaustion defence for Qualcomm-modem equipped products, carving them out from the injunction/recall/destruction orders.
Huawei's claims are barred by IEEE Bylaws / Letter of Assurance commitments (prohibition on suit)
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: IEEE Bylaws 2007Begründung: The court rejected the argument that the IEEE Bylaws / LOA barred Huawei from bringing the infringement action; offering a pool license satisfies contractual LOA commitments.
Exhaustion defence applies to all accused product variants
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: exhaustion doctrineBegründung: The exhaustion defence was accepted only for Qualcomm-modem products proved to have been first placed on market in the EU during the specified period; it did not cover all accused embodiments.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.