IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
EU Update
Subscribe to EU Update's Posts

German Federal Court of Justice reinforces strict willing licensee standard in SEP litigation

by and | Mar 19, 2026 | ,

The German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) established requirements for a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) defense against injunction claims based on standard-essential patents (SEPs). VoiceAge v. HMD, Case No. KZR 10/25 (FCJ Jan. 27, 2026) (Rol-off, Deichfuß, Tolkmitt, Vogt-Beheim, Kochendörfer, JJ.)

Consistent with its earlier decisions, the FCJ adopted an approach that imposes strict procedural and substantive obligations on implementers in FRAND licensing negotiations. This approach reinforces a demanding framework for implementers. The FCJ rejected the implementer’s FRAND defense in this case.

The case attracted considerable attention because the European Commission, acting as the EU competition law authority, intervened by submitting an amicus curiae brief and presenting oral argument before the FCJ. The Commission’s participation underscored the ongoing de-bate over the proper interpretation of FRAND obligations under Article 102 TFEU and, more particularly, the framework established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Huawei v. ZTE.

Willing licensee standard and the obligation to provide security

The FCJ found the implementer to be an unwilling licensee since it unduly delayed its responses to the SEP owner’s license offers and failed to provide adequate security in a timely manner. According to the FCJ, the implementer must promptly enter into negotiations with the SEP owner regarding licensing terms and submit a counteroffer, even if the SEP owner’s initial license offer was not FRAND-compliant. During licensing negotiations, the implementer should actively and constructively engage in efforts to conclude a FRAND-compliant license agreement.

Similar to the recent Statement of Interest by the US Department of Justice and the United States Patent and Trademark Office in US patent litigation between Collision Communications and Samsung, the FCJ underscored the importance of injunctive relief, including for nonpracticing entities (NPEs) and with respect to SEPs. According to the FCJ, only exclusive rights allow an invention to be subject to market processes, and the availability of damages claims does not alter this fundamental principle.

The FCJ cited case law from the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and from national courts in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to support its reasoning. Taken together, these authorities demonstrate a growing consensus within the European judiciary toward interpreting FRAND obligations as establishing a high threshold for a successful FRAND defense. Consequently, FRAND jurisprudence is developing across Europe in a direction that is increasingly strict for implementers.

The FCJ emphasized that if the SEP owner rejects the counteroffer, the implementer must promptly provide adequate security. In this case, the implementer did not adequately do so because it did not even provide security corresponding to the royalties under its own relatively low counteroffer. However, the FCJ did not provide specific guidance on how to determine the required amount of security. The lower court relied on the amount of the SEP owner’s last offer, but the FCJ did not comment on this offer because the security that the implementer provided was too low.

Unlike lower instance courts, however, the FCJ emphasized in an obiter dictum that providing security is sufficient [...]

Continue Reading



read more

News From Across the Pond: UK+ Regime Now Permanent

by and | May 29, 2025 |

In 2021, shortly after Brexit became effective, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) established the “UK+ regime” on the exhaustion of intellectual property (IP) rights with regard to the European Economic Area (EEA). After consultations with stakeholders, the UK IPO announced that this regime will be permanent.

IP rights are exhausted throughout the European Union when the IP owner or its licensee places goods in commerce anywhere in the EU. Post-Brexit, the United Kingdom became a third state, meaning that there was no exhaustion when goods were put on the UK market, then exported to the EEA. Similarly, there was no exhaustion when goods were put on the EU market, then exported to the UK. To address the latter issue, the UK unilaterally implemented the UK+ regime, which was initially planned as an interim solution. The UK+ regime ensured that, from a UK perspective, IP rights were still considered exhausted when goods were placed on the EU market and subsequently resold in the UK. Once a product had been legitimately sold in the EEA, the IP owner could not prevent its resale in the UK with reference to its IP rights. Thus, relevant goods could continue to be parallel traded into the UK, which ensured continued access to products for consumers, as UK businesses could continue to buy from EU suppliers and resell in the UK without needing permission from the IP owner.

Now that the UK+ regime is permanent, an exhaustion regime persists that is asymmetric. From the EU’s point of view, the UK is still a third state, so IP rights are not exhausted in the EEA when relevant goods are sold in the UK and subsequently exported to the EEA. Therefore, the IP owner can continue to prevent the product from being resold in any EEA state with reference to its IP rights and the lack of exhaustion, even if the product was originally sold in the UK by the IP owner itself or by its licensee. When goods are legitimately sold in the EEA and subsequently exported to the UK, however, exhaustion will occur.



read more

Munich Court Addresses Implementer’s Obligation To Provide Security in FRAND Negotiations

by and | Apr 17, 2025 | ,

The Munich Higher Regional Court issued a decision concerning the fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) negotiation process and an implementer’s obligation to provide security if a license offer for standard essential patents (SEPs) is rejected. HMD Global v. VoiceAge, Case No. 6 U 3824/22 Kart, (Judgment of 20 March 2025).

In this case, the Munich Higher Regional Court attempted to fill a gap left by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Huawei v. ZTE regarding an implementer’s obligation to provide adequate security for royalties. This obligation arises when an implementer rejects a SEP holder’s license offer and the SEP holder rejects the implementer’s counteroffer, so there is no agreement on a license.

The Munich Court found that the implementer, HMD Global, provided an inadequate security that was based on HMD Global’s lower counteroffer. The Court explained that it is the SEP holder’s, here VoiceAges, final offer (i.e., the requested royalty) that is determinative for calculating the security amount that an implementer should provide. This is because a willing licensee must accept the SEP holder’s offer if a court declares it to be FRAND and the royalties subject to this offer must be covered by the security. The Court emphasized that an implementer can only establish that it is a willing licensee by making a counteroffer and providing adequate security after rejecting the offer.

However, the Munich Court left open the issue of whether security must be provided if the SEP holder’s final offer is obviously not FRAND, noting that there may be “special cases” where the SEP holder’s final offer may not be determinative of the security without further defining those cases.

The CJEU’s Guidelines to FRAND Negotiations Are Not a Rigid Set of Rules

The Munich Court also took a critical stance in response to the European Commission’s amicus curiae brief and found that the FRAND guidelines set by the CJEU in Huawei v. ZTE are not to be viewed as a rigid set of rules but rather as a “dynamic concept for negotiation.” A court is not limited to assessing the FRAND defense by strictly examining in sequence each step of the CJEU’s guidelines, which includes the following:

  • The SEP holder must send a notice of infringement to the implementer.
  • The implementer must declare to be a willing licensee.
  • The SEP holder must make a FRAND offer.
  • If the offer is not FRAND, the implementer is allowed to reject it but must make a counteroffer.
  • The implementer must provide adequate security for royalties if the SEP holder rejects the implementer’s counteroffer.

The European Commission argued that a court must examine each step before moving on to the next one. This means that, for example, once a court has found that the implementer is a willing licensee, the court must leave the implementer’s subsequent (possibly non-FRAND) conduct out of consideration and cannot undermine the implementer’s established willingness to take a license. A court must then assess whether [...]

Continue Reading



read more

CJEU Recognizes Cross-Border Jurisdiction of National Courts, Long-Arm Jurisdiction of UPC

by , and | Mar 6, 2025 | ,

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a decision significantly expanding the capabilities of both the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the national courts in EU Member States to issue cross-border injunctions and adjudicate on patent infringement acts in countries (seemingly) outside their respective jurisdiction. Case C-339/22 (CJEU, Grand Chamber Feb. 25, 2025) ECLI:EU:C:2025:108.

Background

German company BSH Hausgeräte GmbH owns a European patent that is validated in several EU Member States and non-EU countries such as Turkey. BSH sued Swedish company Electrolux AB before a Swedish court for infringement of all national parts of the European patent (including the Turkish part).

Electrolux argued that the parts of the patent validated outside Sweden were invalid and that the Swedish court accordingly lacked jurisdiction to rule on these infringement claims. Electrolux relied on Article 24(4) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, the Brussels I bis Regulation, which confers exclusive jurisdiction for questions of patent validity on the courts of the state where a patent is registered.

The Swedish court of first instance declared that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on infringement of any non-Swedish parts of the patent. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal referred key questions to the CJEU about the interplay between Articles 4(1) and 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Article 4(1) of the Regulation grants the courts of EU Member States general jurisdiction over all infringement actions committed by a person or company domiciled in their territory (regardless of where the infringement occurred). One of the relevant questions in this case was whether, in light of Article 24(4) of the Regulation, the court hearing the patent infringement action loses jurisdiction when an invalidity defense is raised.

Long-Arm Jurisdiction and Invalidity Defense

The CJEU clarified that Article 24(4) of the Regulation must be interpreted narrowly. According to the CJEU, the “validity of patents” mentioned in Article 24(4) of the Regulation only pertains to validity challenges that would lead to the annulment of the patent with effect erga omnes. Such erga omnes validity proceedings must still be brought before the courts of the forum of registration (e.g., the German Federal Patent Court in the case of the German part of a European patent). However, the CJEU considers that Article 24(4) of the Regulation does not apply to an inter partes invalidity defense raised in patent infringement litigation. Consequently, according to Article 4(1) of the Regulation, a court of an EU Member State in which the infringement case is being heard can decide on patent infringements in another EU Member State or in a third (non-EU) country and does not lose its jurisdiction if an invalidity defense is raised. Patent proprietors can therefore obtain cross-border injunctions in national courts of EU Member States (as well as before the UPC, even in states that do not take part in the UPC), and the courts remain jurisdictionally competent even if the infringer imposes an invalidity defense.

Where a third country outside of [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Skilled Artisan’s View Is Decisive in Assessing Asserted Claim Drafting Error

by | Jan 16, 2025 | ,

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) clarified the legal standard for correcting obvious type inaccuracies in patent claims, explaining that the view of a skilled person at the filing date is decisive when assessing whether a patent claim contains an obvious error. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samsung Bioepis NL B.V., Case No. UPC_CoA_402/2024; APL_40470/2024 (CoA Luxembourg Dec. 20, 2024) (Grabinski, Blok, Gougé, JJ.; Enderlin, Hedberg, TJ.)

Alexion owns a European patent directed to a drug comprising an antibody that includes the “SEQ ID NO:4” amino acid sequence and that binds “complement component 5” (C5). The description refers to SEQ ID NO:4 as a sequence of 236 amino acids, and the claims also refer to SEQ ID NO:4. It is known in the state of the art that an antibody comprising the entire amino acid sequence, including amino acids forming a “signal peptide,” is unlikely to bind C5. Alexion sought provisional measures, arguing that Samsung infringed Alexion’s patent even though Samsung’s drug did not include the first 22 amino acids (i.e., the signal peptide in this case) of SEQ ID NO:4.

Originally, Alexion applied for the patent as granted but later requested to amend the claims to exclude the first 22 amino acids because of an obvious error during prosecution. The Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) of the European Patent Office (EPO) rejected the request and found that the requested amendment was not a correction of an obvious error.

The Court of First Instance similarly rejected Alexion’s request, although it found that Samsung made literal use of the patent. The Court of First Instance argued, contrary to the TBA, that the first 22 amino acids were meant to be excluded from SEQ ID NO:4 in the patent claim, and that this sequence was obviously not correctly reproduced in the view of a skilled person because otherwise the claimed drug would be unsuitable to bind to C5 (as was undisputed by the parties). However, the Court of First Instance rejected Alexion’s request for provisional measures against Samsung. The Court of First Instance clarified that it must consider not only its own claim interpretation but also the TBA’s different interpretation. Its rationale was that because it is the infringement-focused court, the Court of First Instance  should, before ordering provisional measures, consider whether the TBA, based on its interpretation, would revoke the patent in parallel proceedings because of insufficient disclosure under Article 83 of the European Patent Convention. Ultimately, considering the TBA’s claim interpretation, the Court of First Instance found that the patent’s validity was not certain to the extent required to provide provisional measures. Alexion appealed.

The CoA rejected Alexion’s appeal, finding that the Court of First Instance’s claim interpretation (i.e.,  excluding the first 22 amino acids from the claim ) was legally flawed. The CoA instead adopted the TBA’s claim interpretation and argued (on this point, not much different from the Court of First Instance) that the EPO was likely to revoke the patent. The [...]

Continue Reading



read more

UPC Issues First FRAND Decision

by and | Dec 20, 2024 | ,

In a landmark decision, the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Local Division Mannheim set standards for enforcing standard essential patents (SEPs) and for negotiating fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licenses under SEPs. In line with the framework previously established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. ZTE Corp., the judgment outlines the obligation on parties in FRAND negotiations. Panasonic Holdings Corp. v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH, Case No. UPC_CFI_210/2023; ACT_545551/2023 (Local Division Mannheim Nov. 22, 2024) (Tochtermann, J.; Bötter, J.; Brinkman, J.; Loibner, TJ.)

Read more here.



read more

UPC Court of Appeal Rules on Suspending First Instance Enforcement, Managing Director Liability

by | Nov 21, 2024 | ,

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) addressed a request for suspensive effect of an appeal and ruled that managing directors of an alleged patent-infringing company cannot be held liable as “intermediaries” under Article 63 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA). Koninklijke Philips NV v. Belkin GmbH, UPC_CoA_579/2024, ORD_53377/2024 (UPC CoA Oct. 29, 2024) (Rombach, J.)

In contrast to German law (for example), appeals before the UPC generally do not have suspensive effect (See Article 74(1) of the UPCA). Thus, first instance decisions are immediately enforceable under Article 82 of the UPCA and Rule 354 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), which can have significant economic implications, particularly in the context of injunctions against the affected companies. To mitigate such effects, an application for suspensive effect may be filed under Rule 223.1 of the RoP.

In the present case, Philips initiated an infringement action against the Belkin Group before the Local Division Munich (CFI_390/2024), targeting not only the Belkin Group but also its subsidiaries’ managing directors. In its first instance decision, the Munich court ruled in favor of Philips and granted an injunction against Belkin and its subsidiaries’ managing directors, classifying the latter as “intermediaries” within the meaning of Article 63(1), Section 2 of the UPCA. Belkin appealed and requested suspensive effect under Rule 223.1 of the RoP.

The CoA partially granted this request, ordering suspensive effect with regard to the injunction against the managing directors. The CoA ruled that the suspensive effect of an appeal is an exception that can only be ordered in special circumstances. This involves determining whether the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision of the appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent’s interest in enforcement. The CoA clarified that such circumstances exist where the decision being appealed is manifestly wrong. Whether this is the case – and whether there is, therefore, an evident violation of the law – is assessed on the basis of the factual findings and legal considerations of the first instance decision. If these findings or legal considerations prove to be untenable on summary examination, suspensive effect must be ordered.

In the present case, the CoA found a manifest error of law in the classification of the managing directors as “intermediaries” within the meaning of Article 63 of the UPCA and Article 11 of Directive 2004/48. It reasoned that managing directors, acting in their official capacity, represent the company itself and are not external to it. Therefore, the appellant company cannot be a “third party” in relation to its CEO. Accordingly, liability under Article 63(1), Section 2 of the UPCA as an intermediary cannot arise solely from the CEO functioning as a managing director.

Consequently, the CoA granted suspensive effect for the injunction against the managing directors but dismissed the application for suspensive effect in all other respects.

Practice Note: Practitioners should carefully consider the rule exception framework when applying for suspensive effect before the UPC. To be successful, a convincing, case-specific justification [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Data Mining for AI Systems Training Permitted Under German Law

by | Nov 7, 2024 | ,

In a landmark decision, a German district court recently decided that copying images to create a data set that can potentially be used for training generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems does not infringe German copyright law. Robert Kneschke v. Large Scale Artificial Intelligence Open Network, Case No. GRUR-RS 2024, 25458 (Hamburg District Court Sept. 27, 2024)

The nonprofit Large Scale Artificial Intelligence Open Network (LAION) created a data set containing 5.85 billion image-text pairs publicly available on the internet. This data set can be used to train generative AI systems. For the creation of the data set, LAION accessed a preexisting data set with uniform resource locators (URLs) referencing images and their descriptions. First, LAION extracted the URLs and downloaded the referenced images, including a copyrighted work by photographer Robert Kneschke, even though a reservation of use against web scraping was declared on a subpage of the website. LAION analyzed the image descriptions with a software application. The application excluded image-text pairs where text and image content did not match sufficiently. LAION only added validated image-text pairs to its data mining.

Robert Kneschke claimed copyright infringement based on LAION’s download of his images.

The district court explained that LAION’s mere downloading of Kneschke’s images did not encroach on his right of reproduction under German copyright law. The district court further held that LAION’s actions were justified under and in compliance with Section 60d(1) of the German Act on Copyright and Related Rights (UrhG) – a scientific research exception.

Section 60d(1) authorizes reproduction of text and data mining for scientific purposes by research organizations. The district court clarified that the creation of the data set was data mining, even if the purpose of the creation was AI training. As the district court explained, analysis of an image to compare it with a preexisting description is analysis for the purpose of obtaining information. The district court held that even the creation of the data set, which could form the basis for training AI systems, should be regarded as a scientific purpose (i.e., activity in pursuit of new knowledge irrespective of an immediate knowledge gain or subsequent research success). The creation of the data set was found to be a fundamental step for the purpose of using the data set to gain knowledge later. Of note, the data set was published free of charge and thus also made available to researchers involved in AI. According to the district court, because the training and development of AI systems (even by commercial enterprises) is still scientific research, it was irrelevant that the data set could additionally be used by commercial enterprises to train or develop their AI systems.

Although not legally relevant to the outcome, the district court considered the reservation of use declared in natural language (English) on a subpage to be machine-readable and therefore effective.

Practice Note: This judgment will have far-reaching implications for the use of copyright as a barrier to training AI systems.



read more

No Leave, No Appeal: UPC Court of Appeal Denies Request for Discretionary Review

by | Oct 24, 2024 | ,

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled that if a party wishes to appeal against a procedural order, and leave to appeal has not already been granted in the order, the party must first apply to the Court of First Instance for leave to appeal. Only if such an application is rejected is it then possible to request a discretionary review by the CoA (pursuant to Rule 220.3 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP)). Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation (_586/2024, APL_ 54732/2024) (UPC CoA Oct. 9, 2024) (Simonsson, Standing J.)

In the proceedings between Suinno and Microsoft before the UPC Central Division Paris (Court of First Instance in these proceedings), the latter ordered the claimant, Suinno, to provide security for costs. There was no indication in the order that it could be appealed.

Suinno did not request that the Court of First Instance grant leave to appeal, but instead directly lodged a request for discretionary review of the order with the CoA.

The CoA deemed this request inadmissible and dismissed the appeal. The standing judge (see Rules 345.5 and .8 of the RoP) noted that the Court of First Instance had neither granted nor denied leave to appeal and the first instance order did not contain any reference to Article 73 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) and Rule 220.2 of the RoP, contrary to Rule 158.3 of the RoP.

However, this did not relieve Suinno from its obligation to request a grant of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance. Absent an express grant or refusal of a grant, there is no implied grant of leave to appeal, notwithstanding that the Court of First Instance did not mention the possibility of requesting leave to appeal. The CoA cited Rule 158 of the RoP but noted that the absence of the indication referring to Article 73 of the UPCA and Rule 220.2 of the RoP cannot be understood as an implied grant.

Practice Note: A discretionary review by the CoA pursuant to Rule 220.3 of the RoP is only permissible if the Court of First Instance has expressly granted or expressly refused to grant leave to appeal, which is in line with other CoA decisions on this issue (See, e.g., CoA, Order of August 21, 2024; UPC_CoA_454/2024, APL_44552/2024, para 21; Order of October 15, 2024, CoA_UPC 01/2024, ORD_41423/2024 in the main proceedings ACT_588685/2023, UPC_CFI_440/2023, para 6).

Even if, contrary to the RoP, a first instance decision of the UPC does not contain any indication that an appeal may be filed in accordance with the UPCA and the RoP (but is silent on the issue of appeal in general), there is no positive effect for a party wishing to appeal the decision; it is still necessary to request a grant of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Boundaries? European UPC Confirms Its International Jurisdiction

by | Oct 3, 2024 | ,

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled that the UPC has international jurisdiction for alleged infringement actions that originate outside the UPC’s Member States. Dish and Sling v. AYLO, Case No. UPC-CoA-188/2024 (CoA UPC Sept. 3, 2024) (Grabinski, Pres. CoA; Barutel, Blok, JJ.)

In its ruling, the CoA upheld the order of the Court of First Instance Local Division Mannheim. In the main proceedings, Dish and Sling brought an infringement action against AYLO. The patent in dispute concerned a method for presenting rate adaptive streams from a media player. AYLO was accused of indirectly infringing the patent in numerous UPC Member States, including Germany, by offering and supplying the video files made available for streaming and the media players for streaming videos. AYLO lodged a preliminary objection requesting that the infringement action be dismissed for lack of UPC jurisdiction, Rule 19.1(a) of the UPC Rules of Procedure. After the preliminary objection was rejected, AYLO lodged an appeal against the order of the Local Division Mannheim.

AYLO argued that the UPC does not have international jurisdiction on the basis of Article 7(2) in conjunction with Article 71b(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation because the harmful event would not occur in a UPC Member State since AYLO’s servers are located in the United States. The CoA disagreed, explaining that the Article 7(2) phrase “place where the harmful event occurred or may occur” is intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to the damage. Consequently, the alleged infringer can be sued in either place.

The UPC has international jurisdiction with respect to an infringement action under two conditions:

  • The European patent in suit has effect in at least one contracting Member State.
  • The alleged damage may occur in that particular Member State.

Therefore, irrespective of the location of AYLO’s server, the UPC had jurisdiction over the infringement action because AYLO’s websites are accessible in Germany where the patent has effect. This access was sufficient to satisfy the likelihood of damage, which was allegedly caused via the internet. Users in Germany can obtain means (media players and video files) that allegedly relate to an essential element of the patented invention and are suitable and intended for putting the invention into practice. The CoA clarified that it is not necessary for a website to be directed at users in the territory of the concerned Member State. The actual availability of access to the website and damage to the European patent owner in a Member State are decisive.

Practice Notes:

  • While UPC courts may consider infringement allegations in a case when evaluating UPC jurisdiction, that consideration is limited to the context of what the patent owner must prove to establish its allegations. Argument as to the specific requirements of the infringement allegations is not necessary. In the reported case, which was based on allegations of indirect infringement, it was not necessary to determine whether AYLOS’s alleged [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES