Vestel v Philips and Access Advance (Rechtbank Den Haag, HA ZA 20-1236, 2021)

Dhenne Avocats · 11 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Hague District Court accepted jurisdiction over Vestel’s action against Philips and three defendants established outside the EU: Access Advance, administrator of the HEVC pool, and two pool members. Jurisdiction over the US and Japanese companies rests on the connection with the claim against Philips under Article 7(1) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, which the court reads more broadly than Article 8(1) of Regulation 1215/2012. The action, which seeks among other things findings that the offers are not FRAND and a determination of FRAND terms, can therefore proceed to the merits in the Netherlands.

Facts and procedure

Vestel sells televisions implementing the HEVC standard. Philips, GE Video Compression and IP Bridge license their essential patents through the pool run by Access Advance; Vestel considers the pool offer and the parallel bilateral offers not FRAND and alleges coordination among members (points 2.2.1 to 2.2.4). Proceedings brought in England against Access Advance and Philips had ended in a finding of no jurisdiction, upheld on appeal (point 2.2.5). In July 2020 Philips, GE Video Compression, IP Bridge and Dolby sued Vestel Germany for infringement in Germany (point 2.2.6). Vestel seeks, among other things, declarations that its proposals are FRAND and that it is entitled to a licence on its terms or on FRAND terms set by the court, findings of abuse of dominance and of a cartel, and bans on enforcing the patents (point 2.1). The defendants challenged jurisdiction (points 3.1 to 3.3).

The applicable law

As Philips is domiciled in the Netherlands, jurisdiction over it follows from Article 4(1) of Regulation 1215/2012 (point 4.1). For the defendants established in the United States and Japan, Article 6 of the Regulation refers to Dutch domestic rules, namely Article 7(1) Rv (point 4.2).

Question

Can the Dutch court, having jurisdiction over a Dutch pool member, hear on grounds of connection a FRAND action against the pool administrator and other members established outside the EU?

Decision

The court declared that it had international and territorial jurisdiction (points 5.1 and 5.2). Article 7(1) Rv requires a connection between the claims such that reasons of expediency justify hearing them together, a broader test than the close connection and risk of irreconcilable judgments under Article 8(1) of the Regulation (point 4.4). The claims are worded identically against all defendants, cover the same territory and rest largely on the same complaints: abuse of dominance, cartel, breach of pre-contractual good faith and of the FRAND undertaking (point 4.7). Those complaints withstand the limited review applicable at this stage: the members license their portfolios through Access Advance, any abuse could be attributed to them, and an email from GE Video Compression described its bilateral offer as structurally similar to the pool licence (point 4.8). Jurisdiction extends to the enforcement bans said to amount to anti-suit relief, whose merits are left for trial (point 4.9). The Hague’s territorial jurisdiction was upheld (points 4.10 to 4.13).

Key points for practice

• A pool member domiciled in the Netherlands may open Dutch jurisdiction over the administrator and other members established outside the EU (points 4.2 and 4.9).
• The court does not rule at this stage on whether the offers are FRAND, which is left to the merits (point 4.8).
• Concrete evidence of alignment between pool and bilateral offers strengthens the connection (point 4.8).
• Practical point: faced with a pool that has a Dutch member, an implementer has a forum in the Netherlands capable of hearing a claim to determine FRAND terms against all licensors.

Provisions applied

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Art. 101 and Art. 102 (grounds relied on by Vestel)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 6 and 8(1)

National law

Arts 7(1) and 102 Rv; Arts 80 and 83(1) Rijksoctrooiwet 1995

Case law cited

HR 29 March 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:443; HR 14 April 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:694; CJEU, Kolassa (C-375/13); CJEU, Universal Music (C-12/15); CJEU, 5 July 2018, Lithuanian Airlines v Air Baltic (ECLI:EU:C:2018:533)

Related decisions

• Vestel v Access Advance, Court of Appeal, 26 March 2021, English finding of no jurisdiction noted in the facts.

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.