UPC_CFI_495/2025

Decisions and documents (2)

• 2026-08-24procedural

  Claimant:

  Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.

  Defendant:

  HMD Global Oy

  1. For competition law reasons, the patent holder is only required to indicate to the patent user one licensing route that satisfies the FRAND requirements (concurring with LD Munich, decision of 18 December 2024 – UPC_CFI_9/2023 – Huawei v Netgear, p. 136). 2. However, there are constellations where the implementer can demand a bilateral licence instead of a pool licence. Such constellations are for example, but non- exclusively, given when the implementer expressed its desire to obtain a multi- standard-licence or to sign cross-licencing agreements with the individual patent proprietors. The same applies when an implementer had already advanced with a significant number of other pool contributors to conclude bilateral licences for the whole pool portfolio. 3. Choosing the bilateral route does not ease the implementer’s obligation to show its willingness to sign a licence throughout the course of the negotiations In particular, an implementer’s insistence on bilateral licensing can still indicate unwillingness when the implementer fails to present comprehensible reasons for its decision to opt for bilateral agreements, failed to conclude bilateral agreements with the other SEP pool licensors within reasonable time, and refrained from placing a security. This is even more true when initially being provided a FRAND pool offer.

  Judge: Sabine Klepsch • Panel: Sabine Klepsch🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-08-24procedural

  Claimant:

  Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.

  Defendant:

  HMD Global Oy

  Infringement. Document: 495_2025_decision-correctionsigned1-judges-signed.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/184089

  Judge: Sabine Klepsch • Panel: Dr. Stefan Schilling🔒 Unlock Official PDF