Nokia v Oleading (Rechtbank Den Haag, KG ZA 22-1045, 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 11 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The interim relief judge in The Hague refused Nokia the provisional injunction it sought, on two patents declared essential to the 4G and 5G standards, against the companies running the Oppo and OnePlus online shops in the Netherlands following expiry of the cross-licence between Nokia and the Oppo group. Following the Sisvel/Xiaomi case law, the judge held that the balance of interests did not favour Nokia: its loss was purely financial and covered by security offered by the defendants, whereas an injunction would have serious and hardly reversible consequences for them. The decision confirms the reluctance of the Dutch interim relief judge to grant provisional injunctions in complex FRAND disputes, despite a German finding that the group was unwilling.

Facts and procedure

Nokia Solutions and Networks holds EP 2 981 103 and EP 3 220 562, declared essential to the 4G and 5G standards at ETSI with a FRAND undertaking (points 2.2 and 2.3). Oleading runs the official Oppo online shop in the Netherlands and Reflection Investment the OnePlus shop, both linked to the Oppo group (points 2.5 to 2.8). The cross-licence between Nokia and that group expired on 1 July 2021 and was not renewed (point 2.9). By judgment of 7 September 2022, The Hague District Court dismissed the nullity actions brought by Orope Germany against the Dutch parts of both patents and granted an injunction against that company (point 2.11). On 5 July 2022 the Mannheim Regional Court had rejected the FRAND defence and found that the Oppo group was not a willing licensee (point 2.14). Nokia sought unconditional injunctions and, in the alternative, injunctions lasting until the Oppo group accepted its offer of expedited arbitration on the FRAND terms of a worldwide licence and made interim payments (point 3.1). On 23 December 2022 the defendants offered security covering their Dutch sales (point 1.3).

The applicable law

The judge took jurisdiction under Article 4 of Regulation 1215/2012, the defendants being established in the Netherlands (point 4.1). In interim proceedings the judge weighs the parties’ interests and may refuse an injunction even where the conduct complained of is unlawful (point 4.4). Relying on earlier decisions of The Hague District Court and Court of Appeal, the defendants argued that the dispute was too complex for interim relief (point 4.2); Nokia relied on subsequent decisions on the merits, the Oppo group’s alleged unwillingness and further grounds of urgency (points 4.3 and 4.3.1).

Question

Can the holder of essential patents obtain, in interim proceedings, an injunction against distributors selling handsets while validity, infringement and the FRAND character of its offer remain in dispute on the merits?

Decision

Nokia’s claims were dismissed (point 7.1). Following the Sisvel/Xiaomi case law, the circumstances relied on did not tip the balance in its favour (point 4.5). Nokia’s loss, limited to two patents in the Netherlands, was purely financial and could be compensated later (point 4.6), and the security offered met its concerns (point 4.7). An injunction, by contrast, would have serious consequences for the defendants, which would have to close their shops or accept Nokia’s broad and expensive worldwide licence offer, with effects hard to undo (points 4.8 to 4.10). Given the complexity of the validity, FRAND and economic valuation issues, only a provisional view was possible and the court on the merits might decide otherwise (point 4.11). The German finding that the Oppo group was unwilling did not bind the Dutch judge, who had to form a view of his own (point 4.12). The alternative claim failed for the same reasons, since it would force arbitration with irreversible consequences (point 4.14). The remaining defences, including FRAND, were not addressed (point 4.15). Nokia was ordered to pay costs of EUR 120,676 (point 7.2).

Key points for practice

• Before the Dutch interim relief judge, the balance of interests may by itself defeat an injunction based on essential patents, without any ruling on the FRAND defence (points 4.5 and 4.15).
• Security offered by the defendant for its national sales weighs in assessing whether the patentee’s loss can be compensated (points 4.6 and 4.7).
• A foreign finding that the implementer is unwilling does not bind the Dutch judge, who rules on that issue only provisionally (point 4.12).
• Practical point: in the Netherlands, an essential patent holder whose loss is merely financial will struggle to obtain an interim injunction against distributors; proceedings on the merits remain the appropriate route.

Provisions applied

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4

National law

Art. 1019h Rv; Art. 6:119 BW

Other instruments

ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy (FRAND undertaking)

Case law cited

Rechtbank Den Haag, 1 August 2019, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:7959; Gerechtshof Den Haag, 17 March 2020, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:711; Rechtbank Den Haag, 7 September 2022, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:9193; LG Mannheim, 5 July 2022, 2 O 107/21; HR, 3 June 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:1087

Related decisions

• Sisvel v Xiaomi, The Hague Court of Appeal, 17 March 2020, relied on by the defendants and applied by the judge (points 4.2 and 4.5).

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the text of the decision (rechtspraak.nl, open data service), consulted on 11 October 2026. Only the official text is authoritative.