UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 494/2025

Jun 4, 2025·EP2380167 +1 more · APPARATUS, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR UPMIXING A DOWNMIX AUDIO SIGNAL

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
  • Oliver Bäcker
Patents
Division
Hamburg LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Computer technology · Telecommunications
Language
English
First decided
Dec 19, 2025
Last decision
Aug 24, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Hamburg LDLockedLocked
Judge Sabine KlepschLockedLocked
Judge Stefan SchillingLockedLocked
Judge Peter AgergaardLockedLocked
Judge Christoph NorrenbrockLockedLocked

At the UPC: Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (14 cases)·HMD Global Oy (14 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CFI 495/2025·UPC APP 34320/2025·UPC APP 34702/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Hamburg LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-08-24
    InfringementPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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)
  • 2025-12-19
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Production of licence agreements (R. 190 RoP)
    • FRAND / SEP (AAC standard)
    • Antitrust transparency obligation
    • Exhaustion of rights defence
Documents
Show all 365 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Order2026-09-11Not public
Order2026-09-11Not public
Order2026-09-04Not public
Order2026-09-04Not public
Communication2026-09-04Not public
Receipt2026-08-26Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-26Not public
Document Claimant2026-08-26Not public
Publication of order2026-08-24Not public
Case closed2026-08-24Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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.

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 72 UPCA; §§ 195, 199, 203 BGB
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • 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.

    RespondentLegal basis: 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.

    RespondentLegal basis: 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.

    RespondentLegal basis: Revocation counterclaim; rejected in its entirety, patent upheld as granted